Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

TYNE TUNNEL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

School Meals

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Education the unit cost for food for school meals in 1955–56; and what estimate he has formed of the unit cost in 1956–57.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): The average food cost per meal in 1955–56 is not yet known, but is expected to be about 9·4d. I expect the cost in 1956–57 to be about 9·8d.

Mr. Hayman: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of any extravagance in the use of potatoes by local education authorities? Is it his right hon. Friend's intention to surcharge such authorities, if the cost of potatoes exceeds the meagre figure which he has in mind?

Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member has on the Order Paper another Question about potatoes about which two memoranda have been issued to local authorities. Provided that local authorities have paid reasonable attention to those circulars, the sort of situation which the hon. Member envisages will not arise.

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Education the reasonable price for

potatoes to be purchased by local education authorities for school meals, referred to in his instructions to them in School Meals Service Memorandum No. 25 (Addendum No. 1).

Mr. Vosper: A reasonable price will vary with the type and quality of the potatoes and with other local circumstances; for these reasons my right hon. Friend prefers to leave discretion to local education authorities.

Mr. Hayman: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the market for new potatoes has already collapsed, causing consternation to growers in different parts of the country, including Cornwall? Will he think again, and try not to be so mean about this little item?

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend has withdrawn the memorandum limiting the use of potatoes. There is now no limit on the use of potatoes by local authorities.

North Wales (Speech Therapists)

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking to enable the 370 school children in North Wales, who are in need of speech therapy but who are receiving no attention, to receive a proper course of treatment.

Mr. Vosper: I am glad to say that the national shortage of speech therapists is being gradually overcome, and my right hon. Friend is advising local education authorities in North Wales to approach the training institutions direct, in addition to advertising, so that they get more of the newly trained therapists.

Mr. Hughes: Should the shortage of speech therapists continue over a period of a year or two, will the Parliamentary Secretary consider utilising the services of trained elocutionists? I understand that they have had very good results with children who have defects of this kind.

Mr. Vosper: I should like to consider that suggestion. I agree that the situation in Caernarvonshire and Anglesey is particularly serious, and I am anxious to help local authorities to do everything they can to overcome it.

Milk Tablets

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Education the longest continuous period in which school children have received


milk tablets instead of milk; and whether any change has been noted in their nutrition as a result of this.

Mr. Vosper: One small school in an isolated rural area has been using milk tablets for more than a year. There is no evidence of any change in the health of the pupils.

Mr. Hastings: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that there are certain valuable nutrients in fresh milk, but which are not in milk tablets in sufficient quantity? Will he very carefully watch the nutrition of children, particularly where, as in this case, milk tablets have been used for a considerable time?

Mr. Vosper: These tablets have been used in this case for some time, because previously no liquid milk was available. A medical officer of health recently visited the school and found no evidence of deterioration in health. In fact, all the children were well nourished, and their general condition and physical development were good, but I appreciate the hon. Member's point, and we will keep a watch on this matter.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that on commercial television every night—as I am informed and as I have occasionally seen for myself—there is advertised the need for more people to consume milk? In fact there seems to be a superabundance of milk. In that case, why do we require to use milk tablets at all?

Mr. Vosper: In this and about 80 other cases there are schools to which it is not possible to supply milk at a reasonable price and of a quality sufficiently high for school children.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Education the result of the inquiries he has made into the use of milk tablets in schools; and, in particular, whether these tablets are consumed by the children under supervision of the teacher as milk is, or whether they are handed to the children to be eaten at any time.

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend has not completed his inquiries but reports received up to date reveal that the consumption of tablets is supervised in the same way as fresh milk.

Mr. Hastings: May I ask the Minister, whose fondness for these milk tablets I

realise, if he has ever made a test as to how long it takes him to eat ten tablets and how many glasses of water are necessary to wash down those tablets? Are not all these factors rather significant, if teachers are to be sure that the tablets are consumed in school and not taken home by the children to play with?

Mr. Vosper: Both the hon. Gentleman and I have consumed these tablets and I, no more than he, think a great deal of them. My right hon. Friend's preference is for liquid milk. But there are occasions where that is not possible. In fact, in the schools which have been examined, the tablets have been consumed, not all at once, but in separate issues of five.

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Gentleman says—and he has said it—that the cause is partly due to the high price of liquid milk, why cannot the Government do something to bring the price down, so that these children can get liquid milk?

Mr. Vosper: This was an issue fully debated in the House—

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman should take a few arsenic tablets instead of milk tablets.

Mr. Shurmer: On a point of order. Has the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) the right to suggest that any Member of this House should be poisoned by arsenic tablets instead of taking milk tablets?

Expenditure, Wales (Economies)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education what proportion of the new economies in expenditure on education will come from Wales.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): I expect about one-fifteenth of the savings resulting from the increase in the price of school meals, and rather less of that from the raising of fees for further education classes, to come from Wales.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that he would not find an educationist throughout the Principality who would agree that these economies are justified? Is he also aware that he is going in the teeth of all considered opinion on education in Wales?

Sir D. Eccles: I am not aware of that. When I was in Wales a few days ago, I mentioned school meals, and I was not given the same information as the hon. Gentleman has.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Education how many of the proposed new schools in Wales will be delayed in construction by his latest economy proposals.

Sir D. Eccles: The 44 Welsh school building projects included in the programme approved for the current year will all be subject to a delay of about three months.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Minister saying that there is no opposition to this either? Is he aware that he must be moving in circles of Welsh people who are not known to the rest of us? Would he enlighten us as to where he has been?

Sir D. Eccles: Of course, this is disappointing, but there were seventeen other projects in Wales which had not been started on 31st March, and they have to be started before these forty-four.

Technical Education, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Education, when reviewing his plans for the future development of facilities for technological and technical education and further education in Wales, if he will take account of the continued industrial development in the Principality, which will increase the need for such facilities; and if he will make a statement.

Sir D. Eccles: I am well aware of the growth of industry in Wales and the importance of ample provision for technical education at all levels. I have recently told the Welsh local education authorities what projects they may start up to March, 1959.

Mr. Gower: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that not only has there been this great industrial development but that he also has to take into account lack of facilities in pre-war years in the relative depression at that time.

Sir D. Eccles: Yes.

Technology (Diploma)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education whether he will recommend to the Hives Committee that the new quali-

fication in technology shall be a degree and not a diploma.

Sir D. Eccles: No. The power to confer a degree has become the distinguishing mark of a university.

Dr. King: Will the Minister convey to his learned advisers, who would object if their own professional qualifications were called Dip.Arts., Dip. Sc., M. Dip. and Dip. D., that the granting of degrees in technology would be good not only for euphony but also for parity of esteem in the battle that he, like all of us, hopes to wage for advanced technical education in the immediate future?

Sir D. Eccles: I think that we all desire to get parity but that is not quite the same thing as saying that we shall get an exact equality in names.

Maladjusted Children

Mr. MacColl: asked the Minister Education whether he is aware that in London a child ascertained to be maladjusted has to wait about six months for placing in an appropriate school; and whether he will take immediate steps to secure the provision of more places in schools for maladjusted children and the early implementation of the Report of the Committee on Maladjusted Children.

Mr. Vosper: The average waiting period for London children found to need treatment for maladjustment is four months. Some senior boys may have to wait longer. The L.C.C. is opening another day school in September and will provide further boarding places early next year. As regards the last part of the Question, I cannot add to the reply given on 22nd June to my hon. Friend the Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson).

Mr. MacColl: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long the wait is to be before he is really going to do something about this? Is he aware that in the meantime many of these children are not only making themselves miserable but are making miserable everybody else in the schools in which they are; and will he bear in mind how long the Committee was in making its Report, and that it is absurd for him to continue putting off this question time after time?

Mr. Vosper: I appreciate the importance of this matter, and the London County Council has, I think, three other


schools in mind. There has been an improvement compared with 1951, which is always a good year with which to make a comparison. The waiting period was then six to twelve months and it is now only four months.

New School Projects (Deferment)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Education how many schools will be postponed as a result of his recent circular imposing a reduction in capital expenditure on new schools in 1956 and 1957.

Sir D. Eccles: There are some 750 projects in the 1956–57 programme as previously approved. Most of them will be deferred but in many cases only for a few weeks and generally for less than three months.

Mr. Chetwynd: When will the Minister stop interfering with the plans of local authorities? Is he not aware that the Government's original proposal to defer starts for three months and then defer them again has only aggravated the problem and not eased it? If he is looking for the real cause of the difficulty, would he consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer and impose some kind of building control on less essential projects?

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. I am looking forward to the time when the programmes are up-to-date, and I think that they will be as a result of the steps now taken.

New Schools (Double Windows)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Education in how many of the schools now being built double windows are being provided; and what percentage of the cost of heating he expects to save by this means.

Sir D. Eccles: Double windows are being incorporated in one or two new schools. Some saving in annual running costs is to be expected, but not sufficient to cover the additional capital cost of double windows.

Mr. Hastings: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the cooling effect of the large windows which many schools are compelled to have to light the school rooms efficiently all over, and does he realise that, apart from the saving in fuel, the effect of these large windows is to

cool the atmosphere and produce an appearance of dampness, not only on the windows but, in some cases, in the rest of the school?

Sir D. Eccles: This is a technical problem and my advisers are investigating it very carefully. I understand that the glass industry is continuing research into it, but the present position is as stated in my original Answer.

Gipsy Children

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware that many gipsy children of school age are not receiving any education from State or denominational schools and that serious problems arise in later life because of being unable to read or write; and what action he proposes to take in this special limited problem which is not capable of solution by the local education authorities.

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. Local education authorities do what they can but so long as gipsies are gipsies their children's education will be a problem.

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that with the diminution in the number of sites where gipsies can stay for some time, it is impossible to give them education? Is he not further aware that in other European countries special efforts have been made not only for these children but for the adults, and that if he does not do something about this matter they will always remain outcasts?

Sir D. Eccles: I do not think that the position is quite so bad as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Dodds: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the figures?

Sir D. Eccles: A survey was made in Kent which showed that a great many of the children were attending school, at any rate in the winter time. We will do our best, but it is very difficult with these people, who care so much for their mobility, to lay hold of the children and get them into the schools.

Large Classes, Birmingham

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Minister of Education how many classes there are in Birmingham with more than 40 and 50 children in each class, respectively; what


will be the effect upon the present overcrowded conditions at the commencement of the autumn terms if the present rate of recruitment is not improved; and what will be the result upon the academic standards of children.

Sir D. Eccles: In January, 1956, there were 2,280 classes with more than 40 pupils, including 50 classes with more than 50 pupils, in primary and secondary schools maintained by the Birmingham local education authority. Naturally, if the number of teachers in post declines the situation will get worse. The solution is to make Birmingham a place where teachers want to go and want to stay.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister not aware that the local education authority estimates that by the end of the year they will be more than 1,100 teachers short, and that many secondary school pupils will be on short time, as well as their fathers? Will the Minister, therefore, address himself to the question whether, apart from housing, which in my opinion cannot affect the situation, he can take emergency action which would help to relieve the teachers of having to teach in conditions such as this, which are an outrage on their profession?

Sir D. Eccles: I am asking the local authority to substantiate the estimates to which the hon. Member has referred; I am awaiting its report. The one way in which I think Birmingham can help itself in the immediate future is by preventing the wastage from being so large.

School Building Programme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education how many of the 330 schools included in the 1955–56 building programme but not started by 31st March have now been started; how many he estimates will have been started by the end of the calendar year; and how many schools in the current year's programme will be deferred on account of these arrears.

Sir D. Eccles: Of the 330 schools included in the 1955–56 programme but not started by 31st March, 130 had been started by 31st May, and about another 80 have been authorised to start this month. I expect that another 90 will have started by 31st December. As to the last part of the Question, I would

refer the hon. Member to the Answer I have just given to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd).

Mr. Swingler: Do not these figures reveal a serious state of crisis in the school building programme? Is the Minister not aware that 30 per cent. of the programme which he approved as necessary for last year could not be started in the proper time? What guarantee have we that the programme which he says he has approved for this year will be started with only a few weeks' delay? Is it not a fact that the delays are increasing, and that the only solution is for the Minister to go to the Cabinet and demand an enlarged school building programme?

Sir D. Eccles: I believe that the programme of starts now authorised for this year is just about what can be done—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is what the right hon. Gentleman said last year."]—including this carry-over. If, in a year's time, we find that it is possible to do more, we will look at the situation again.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education what is now the total number of school projects included in the 1956–57 school building programme.

Sir D. Eccles: I expect about 750 school projects to be started in the year ending 31st March, 1957.

Mr. Swingler: Is not that the figure which was originally put into the school building programme for this year? Are there not arrears of 330 projects from last year? Is the Minister really asking the House today to believe that he expects over 1,000 schools to be started in this building year when he could start only about 600 last year?

Sir D. Eccles: No. The 750 includes the carry-over from last year.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education what representations he has received regarding the inadequacy of the current school-building programme; and what action he will take in response to these representations.

Sir D. Eccles: The Association of Education Committees asked me to increase the building programme for 1957–58 beyond the amount promised in Circular 306. I told it that, as explained in the circular, it might be possible to start some


further school building in the last six months of that year if inflation had been checked.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that the information which he has just given suggested that he was going to approve a programme of only about 440 schools for the year 1956–57, which is scarcely credible? Do not all these exchanges show the necessity for a comprehensive investigation of the position which has arisen concerning the necessity for school building and the position of local education authorities, so that we can ascertain how much larger a programme is necessary to avoid a serious drop in standards?

Sir D. Eccles: I think that if the hon. Member studies Circular 306, he will see that what we are doing is pushing out at the end of the current programme approximately the same amount as the carry-over from last year's programme.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education what projects in the Warwickshire school building programme will have to be deferred as a result of his recent restrictions upon new primary and secondary schools.

Sir D. Eccles: The start of some projects will have to be deferred in accordance with paragraph 2 of Circular 306, but I cannot yet say which, because this will depend on their state of readiness.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister not aware that Warwickshire, of all counties, is least able to suffer his axe in this matter? I am sure he is aware that it has a large number of all-age schools. Will he bear that in mind when planning his future economies?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, I am aware of the special difficulties in Warwickshire, and I am glad to say that all the schools which they had not started by 31st March have now been started.

Economies

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Education what consultations he has had with representatives of local education authorities in respect of projected economies or suspension of plans.

Sir D. Eccles: There have been no such consultations recently.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand from that reply that the education authority of the Essex County Council has not, in fact, approached the Minister? Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be consultations with the education authorities, in view of the possible economies that have been mentioned?

Sir D. Eccles: These were decisions of policy which, I thought, should be taken as soon as possible; but having taken them, I am, of course, always willing to listen to authorities who wish to put their special problems. Indeed, I saw all the authorities together last week at their conference.

School Uniforms

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Minister of Education if he will look into the matter of school uniforms in schools under his control, with a view to ensuring that a more satisfactory system is operated which will ensure that reasonable standards and prices are observed.

Mr. Sydney Irving: asked the Minister of Education what representations have been made to his Department in recent years in regard to the need for a new policy in respect to the supply of school uniforms in schools under his control.

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the wide-spread concern at the high cost of school uniforms especially in areas where the monopoly of supplying school uniforms is vested in one shop; and, in view of the more reasonable prices ruling where several selling points are recognised, if he will circularise all local education authorities requiring them to allow a choice of more than one shop for the purchase of uniforms.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the resentment of many parents at being compelled to buy school uniforms at one particular shop as being wrong in principle and unnecessarily costly in practice; and if he will cause an investigation to be held with a view to a revision of the present policy.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Education if he will hold an inquiry designed to reduce the problems of manufacturers of school uniforms and consequently the costs of production and to


give adequate consideration to the complaints by parents of unsuitable materials, monopoly selling points with unnecessarily high prices and the refusal in some schools under his control to approve garments produced in the home even when of a high standard.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction which exists in regard to the quality and price of school uniforms in schools under his control; and if he will inquire into its cause.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the expense incurred by many parents in the purchase of school uniforms for those children who go to local authority schools; and whether he will consider what action he can usefully take in this matter.

Sir D. Eccles: Parents who have cause to complain about school uniforms are quite right to do so, but no representations have been made to me. I am glad to learn that the British Standards Institution is discussing this problem with the manufacturers. I shall keep in touch with the Institution so that I can consider whether there is any action which I can usefully take.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Minister aware that this shocking monopoly racket—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it is a shocking monopoly racket—is causing widespread dissatisfaction and anger? Will he re-read the Report of the women's section of the British Standards Institution, which surely indicates the necessity for immediate Government action in this matter?

Sir D. Eccles: I am always willing to read that Report, and I think there is something in it, but as the Institution itself is discussing the question with the manufacturers we had better see how it gets on.

Mr. Johnson: Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer is constantly asking for economies and the Minister is constantly practising economies on the children in the schools, will he not consider sending a circular to local education authorities, governors and head teachers, if only for the sake of poor parents like myself—[HON. MEMBERS: "Poor?"]—who have to pay for the uniforms?

Sir D. Eccles: What arrangements local authorities have to make grants for uniforms to parents who are poor is another question.

Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that it is extremely difficult for parents to influence schools and local education committees on this problem? It is urgently necessary that the Ministry should hold an investigation and give guidance to local education authorities on this problem if parents are to have the freedom of choice which is their right as consumers and if prices are to be kept under control and standards maintained.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Minister take note of the progressive attitude shown towards this matter in Scotland, where parents have a wide choice as to where they buy school uniforms?

Mr. Shinwell: Where is Conservative freedom?

Sir D. Eccles: My reply to the hon. Lady is that the investigation is going on. If as a result of it I consider that action should be taken, I assure the hon. Lady that we shall take it. I cannot speak as to the position in Scotland.

Mr. Dodds: The Minister said that he had not had any representations made to him, but as Minister of Education is he not aware of the widespread complaints about school uniforms? If he is not willing to be bothered to go into the problems of harassed mothers, is he ready to have representations made to him, and will he keep an open mind on the matter?

Sir D. Eccles: I am aware of it. I have just answered seven Questions together.

Mr. Dodds: That is no answer.

Mr. Edwards: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's Answer, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Dodds: I, too, would like to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: The two hon. Members cannot both do it.

Anti-Litter Campaign

Mr. Speir: asked the Minister of Education whether, with a view to assisting in the anti-litter campaign, he will


ask local education authorities to ensure that adequate instruction is given in all schools on this subject.

Sir D. Eccles: Local education authorities and schools are very conscious of the importance of this matter, and I am glad to have this opportunity of emphasising it.

Mr. Speir: Does not the Minister think that there is rather too much official indifference to this very serious national problem? Will he try to use his influence to see that some education is now given on this matter?

Sir D. Eccles: I believe that the schools are doing quite a good job on the anti-litter campaign.

Secondary Modern Schools (Overcrowding)

Miss Bacon: asked the Minister of Education what effect Circular 306 will have on overcrowding in secondary modern schools.

Sir D. Eccles: As I told the hon. Lady last week, the measures which we have taken are intended to lead to more efficient building; how successful these measures will be depends on general economic conditions which I cannot forecast.

Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that local authorities evidently do not share his optimism that a slash of £34 million in the school building programme will result in more places being provided? Is he further aware that last week they passed a resolution stating that substantial numbers of children will not have the school accommodation promised by the Government? Is he aware that his optimism is not shared by those who know anything about what is happening?

Sir D. Eccles: I think that if the hon. Lady had been at the conference last week she would have found that local education authorities realised that the chances of completing schools in good time were better now than they had been before.

Classes (Size)

Miss Bacon: asked the Minister of Education the average size of classes in grammar schools and secondary modern schools, respectively, on the last convenient date.

Sir D. Eccles: In January, 1955, the average size of classes in maintained and assisted secondary grammar schools was 27·8, and in secondary modern schools 30·7.

Miss Bacon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a long time ago—January, 1955? Can he give an assurance that in the coming years, with the increase in the secondary school population, there will be a sharing of the increased numbers by the grammar schools and the secondary modern schools, not only to ensure that there is no overcrowding but also to ensure that the percentage of children going to grammar schools is not decreased?

Sir D. Eccles: The figures for January, 1956, will be available in the autumn. I certainly give the hon. Lady the assurance for which she asks. She will, of course, recognise that as there are more sixth forms in grammar schools—forms which are small in numbers—it is probable that the pupil-teacher ratio in grammar schools will always be slightly below that in secondary modern schools, or at any rate for the time being.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Bechuanaland (Serowe Kgotla)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what reply he has sent to the 69 members of the Serowe Kgotla who have protested against an order to repair the tribal kgotla and kraal when such an order should only be given by the chief of the tribe.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Commander Allan Noble): The law of the Bechuanaland Protectorate provides that a chief, sub-chief, headman or African authority may call on tribal labour for minor communal services. This accords with Tswana law and custom.
No representations have been received except those which the hon. Member forwarded to me.

Mr. Brockway: Do not those representations represent the view of 69 leaders of the tribe? Will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman do something to try to settle this issue about the chieftainship of the tribe, taking advantage of


the coming visit of Tshekedi Khama to try to bring about a meeting between him and Seretse Khama on this matter?

Commander Noble: The number which the hon. Member quoted is a very small proportion of the tribe, and there is no evidence that the tribe as a whole were opposed to the carrying out of the order. In fact, the new Proclamation of 1956, which was the law I quoted, was drawn up in consultation with and with the support of a committee of the African Advisory Council.

Self-Governing Colonial Territories

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will arrange for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to consider raising the status of self-governing Colonial Territories relevant to membership of the Commonwealth in order to avoid invidious distinctions.

Commander Noble: It is not the practice to disclose the subjects to be discussed at meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

Mr. Sorensen: Nevertheless, would not the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that this matter is of very great importance, that the present position is most ambiguous, and that it should therefore be discussed at an early date, in order to give some guidance to those territories which are developing towards complete self-government?

Commander Noble: I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Softwood and Hardwood

Mr. Gibson-Watt: asked the President of the Board of Trade to state, in cubic feet, the amounts of softwood and hardwood recently released from strategic reserve; and how these figures compare with the previous five years.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): About 25 million cubic feet of softwood and 1·8 million cubic feet of hardwood have

recently been released for disposal from the strategic reserve. During the previous three years 13·4 million cubic feet of softwood and 0·9 million cubic feet of hardwood were released and sold, mainly in the course of turning over stocks. There were no releases in the preceding two years.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will my hon. Friend give his assurance that he has consulted the home-grown timber organisation and will continue to do so in future releases?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have consulted a wide variety of sections of the timber trade about these disposals.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: asked the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements he is making to ensure that the release of softwood and hardwood timber, recently authorised from strategic reserve, will not affect the stability of the home market.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The arrangements for the disposal of softwood and hardwood, including the rate and method of disposal, were discussed with the trade. The softwood has been offered for sale by tender in the first instance, and some of the lots for which no acceptable tenders were received have later been sold by negotiation. No softwood has been sold unless the price offered appeared reasonable in present market conditions. Hardwood will be sold in the same way, and today is the last day on which tenders may be submitted.

Mr. Gibson-Watt: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the reserve price of these stocks compares reasonably with the current commercial value in this country?

Mr. Thorneycroft: In consultation with the trade, we have endeavoured to see that these sales do not disturb the ordinary market for wood. I have no reason to think that the trade is dissatisfied with the arrangements which we have made.

Tourist Industry, Wales and Monmouthshire

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to promote and encourage the tourist trade in Wales and Monmouthshire.

Mr. Gower: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps designed to increase the number of tourists visiting Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The promotion of the tourist industry in any one part of this country is best done by attracting overseas visitors to the country as a whole. The Government gives financial support to the British Travel and Holidays Association for this purpose. The Association contributes to the cost of the overseas publicity done by the Welsh Tourist Board.

Mr. Hughes: Is the President aware that owing to lack of money the activities of the Welsh Tourist Board were severely curtailed last year? Is he aware of the great contribution which tourism can make to the Welsh economy, and in particular towards alleviating the grave unemployment which exists in some parts of the Principality? Will he consult the Minister for Welsh Affairs to see whether something cannot be done to improve matters?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of tourism, nowhere more than in Wales and Monmouthshire, but at the same time we are concerned with attracting overseas visitors to this country, and not merely United Kingdom visitors into Wales.

Mr. Gower: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Welsh Tourist Board has done a remarkable job with very slender resources? Is it not the case that in Scotland the Secretary of State gives substantial help to the Scottish Tourist Board? Would it not be good business to add to the estimated 100,000 overseas visitors who came to Wales last year by giving additional help to the Welsh Tourist Board?

Mr. K. Thompson: They all leave on Sundays.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I certainly agree that the Welsh Tourist Board has done a good job.

Timber (Stockpiling Cost)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the President of the Board of Trade the annual cost of stockpiling timber under the headings of rental, depreciation, and supervision; and what number of parsons are employed in the operations.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It would be contrary to well-established practice to give information of this kind about particular commodities in the stockpile.

Mr. Baldwin: Does not my right hon. Friend think that, in view of the great stockpile of timber in the national forests, and in view of the piled timber in timber merchants' yards, it is about time this extravagant expenditure was stopped and a contribution made towards the reduction in Government expenditure of £100 million?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The question of the strategic need for timber is one for the Minister of Defence.

Welsh Companies (Register)

Mr. Gower: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will set up a Welsh companies register at Cardiff.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I am not aware of any demand or need for such a step.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware of apprehension that companies which have their chief undertakings in London and the Midlands but which also operate in Wales, may be the first victim of any economic and trade difficulties? Is he aware of the views expressed that a Welsh companies' register in Cardiff would encourage firms to have their chief undertakings and offices in Wales?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Most Welsh companies have their shareholders widely spread throughout the United Kingdom, and I do not think any useful purpose would be served by having a special register in Cardiff.

Imports and Exports

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of United Kingdom total imports in 1953, 1954 and 1955 were represented by imports from Europe; and what proportion of the United Kingdom exports during 1953, 1954 and 1955 were sent to European countries.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Of imports, 29 per cent. in 1953, 30 per cent. in 1954 and 31 per cent. in 1955. Of exports, 31 per cent. in 1953, and 32 per cent. in both 1954 and 1955.

Mr. Holt: In view of the growing proportion of our trade both ways with Europe and the fact that this has gone along with increased liberalisation, would the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government intend to take further steps towards liberalisation, as we are now falling behind the other European countries with a lower percentage of about 85 per cent. only?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that that is a rather large policy question to hang upon a request for statistical information.

Mr. Holt: asked the President of the Board of Trade to give the propor-

THE PROPORTIONS OF UNITED KINGDOM TRADE WITH CERTAIN AREAS IN 1955


—
Percentages of total trade (1)


Imports
U.K. Exports
Exports plus re-exports



Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.


Commonwealth countries (2)
…
…
46·1
48·7
47·4


Non-Commonwealth sterling countries
…
…
3·6
5·9
5·8


Non-sterling non-dollar countries
…
…
37·8
37·1
38·2


Dollar countries
…
…
21·7
13·7
13·8


(1) The columns add up to more than 100 per cent. This is because Canadian trade comes into the figures for both the Commonwealth and the "dollar countries". The respective percentages are 8·8, 4·9, and 4·8. Similarly the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan is included both as Commonwealth and as "non-sterling non-dollar". The percentages are 0·4, 0·5 and 0·4.


(2) Independent members, Channel Islands, British whale fisheries and all colonial Protectorates, Trust and Mandated Territories, territories under Condominium and the Protected States of Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and Trucial States.

British Film Production Fund

Mrs. White: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the future of the British Film Production Fund.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am not yet in a position to make a statement on future film policy, but when I do I would expect that statement to cover the position of the British Film Production Fund.

Mrs. White: Is the President of the Board of Trade not aware that there is very considerable disquiet, particularly among our film producers, and could he not now say that if, in October, 1957—when the present agreement comes to an end—no voluntary arrangements can then be made, he will introduce a statutory agreement adequate for the purpose?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, I prefer not to make a statement in bits. I would rather take advice and make it as a whole.

tions of imports into the United Kingdom in 1955 coming from the British Commonwealth, the sterling area excluding the British Commonwealth, the non-sterling area excluding the dollar countries, and from dollar countries; and the proportions of United Kingdom exports to the above areas in the same period and any material adjustment to these figures due to re-export.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the Answer:

Mr. Glenvil Hall: May we expect a statement from the right hon. Gentleman before the House rises at the end of next month?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As I am dependent to some extent on advice which is given to me by the film industry, I should not like to commit myself as to a date.

Scottish Development Area (Factory Building)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the President of the Board of Trade which Government-financed factory in the Scottish Development Area has been approved as a matter of urgency; and what are the seven Government-financed factories which have been deferred.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It would not be proper to disclose details of individual applications. I should perhaps add that, as indicated in reply to the hon. Mem-


ber's Question of 13th June, the one application he referred to is not approved but under consideration.

Mr. Thomson: Is the President aware that the Government's decision to halt almost all Government factory building in Scotland is doing the most serious damage to Scottish prospects of employment, and is completely contradictory to the advice given by his own Department's Scottish experts to a Select Committee of this House quite recently?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Question asked was, which factory is under consideration? As I say, I cannot give the name of it, because it is not our practice to do so. As soon as a decision is reached, I shall be able to announce it.

Mr. Jay: Does the President realise that before now the Board of Trade has had to give lessons in economic policy to the Treasury, and will he now explain to the Treasury that one does not help the national economy by stopping the building of factories in areas where there is unused labour?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am bound to say that when all Departments are being asked to economise, it is not unreasonable that expenditure by the Board of Trade on material and labour should be the subject of some economy at the same time.

Mr. Jay: Are we to understand that the Government's economic policy is run on the principle of fair shares between Departments, without regard to the merits of what is being done?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is run on the basis of trying to live within our means.

AUTOMATION (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Prime Minister whether he will extend the scope of the Ministry of Labour to include matters affecting automation; and whether he will retitle the Ministry accordingly.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service is already responsible for the effects in the employment field of automation as for other forms of industrial development.
I do not consider that it would be helpful to make one Minister responsible for all the aspects of automation, but I have made arrangements for co-ordination between the Government Departments most concerned. I would be opposed to adding the word "automation" to the title of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service, which is long enough already.

Mr. Edelman: In view of the great crisis in the motor industry, which automation is likely to increase rather than to diminish, would it not be desirable, as a matter of efficiency, that overall responsibility for matters concerning automation—social, industrial and technical—should be brought under one Minister rather than, as at present, be fragmented through a whole variety of Ministers? Does not the present system lead to inefficiency, and prevent the concentration of responsibility which is probably what the Prime Minister himself would like to see?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would help very much to make the changes which the hon. Member suggests. Nor do I think I ought to accept his suggestion that automation is creating the crisis in the motor industry. Most people, I think, would probably agree that the difficulty was competition in export markets.

MEMBERS (SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he will extend the terms of reference of the proposed Select Committee on Procedure so that it will be enabled to consider to what extent the present allowance to Members of Parliament is sufficient to meet the cost of their postage, travel, secretarial, living away from home and other expenses necessarily incurred in carrying out their Parliamentary duties, bearing in mind the Report of the Select Committee on Members' Salaries, the vote of the House on the same, and the rise in the cost of wages, prices, dividends, profits and the costs of services since that date;
(2) whether, as he has decided against granting an increase in the salaries of Members of Parliament, he will consider having a special investigation made into


the increase in the costs that have taken place in the last two or three years in the articles and services that a Member has, of necessity, to pay for out of his salary, such as postage, telephones, telegrams, stationery, travel, hotel and living away from home, secretarial, and other expenses, and make a compensating allowance to Members to cover these increased costs.

The Prime Minister: I regret that I could not agree to these proposals. They would not be consistent with the decision against any immediate increase in the salaries and allowances of hon. Members.

Mr. Lewis: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the only people in the country who have to meet the cost of their postaees, their travelling, the cost of living away from their homes and other expenses connected with their jobs are Members of Parliament? As they cannot, for example, be held in any way responsible for, nor can they control, increased postage costs because of the numbers of people who write to them, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that he should look at this subject and, if he cannot accept the suggestion contained in the Question, suggest some other means of dealing with the problem?

The Prime Minister: I did explain the other day why it was not possible to do anything at the present time. The reasons have been given and set out, and I cannot add to them now.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain on what constitutional principle he relies in defying a decision taken by this House on a free vote? At the same time, in view of his previous Answer, will he say what he actually means by not being able to do something at the present time? Does he contemplate doing something in the foreseeable future?

The Prime Minister: As to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I do not want to be drawn beyond what I have said. As regards the first part, he knows that the decision which I have taken is not inconsistent with decisions that have been taken at other times.

Mr. John Hall: If at any time my right hon. Friend feels inclined to lend a sympathetic ear to these requests, would he

at the same time consider the same problems which face the many underpaid and overworked clergy of this country?

CYPRUS

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister what further proposals Her Majesty's Government have for a settlement in Cyprus and the improvement of relations between this country, Greece and Turkey.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the present policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to Cyprus.

The Prime Minister: I have no statement to make on this subject today.

Mr. Grimond: While it is essential to stop terrorism, can the Prime Minister give a further assurance that he will not wait until terrorism has ceased before making some new move in the situation? Will he further bear in mind that an added complication seems to be the endless speculation that goes on as to what is happening in the Colonial Office—and, indeed, in the Conservative Party?

The Prime Minister: As regards the internal aspects of the Cyprus question, the hon. Gentleman knows well that after months of negotiation we made an offer which we, and many others, regarded as fair and reasonable but which, most unfortunately, was rejected. The international aspect of the situation is a matter on which I regret I cannot at present make a statement.

Mr. Bevan: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea when he will be able to make a statement, because there is, as he knows, very great anxiety and, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has just said, it is desirable to put an end to speculation as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: Nobody could take exception to that Question. I wish to make a statement as soon as I can, but, the House will understand, if international negotiations are going on it will be wise to give them any possibility there is of their making some progress. When I feel that either they have arrived at, or are not going to arrive at, some result,


I think it would be clearly the Government's duty to report to the House at once. All I can assure the right hon. Gentleman is that we shall not create undue delay in making any statement.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is out of some concept of national strength that the Government are seemingly proposing an international solution to the problem of Cyprus? Does he recall that even France, which was ravished and occupied during the war, has retained her sovereignty to the extent of offering a solution to her North African problem on national lines? Does he realise that doubts in all these grave matters are causing us acute anxiety?

The Prime Minister: I cannot go beyond what I have said. The international aspect of this matter is one which has to be discussed between Governments, and from time immemorial the responsibility for that rests on Government and this Government certainly intend to discharge it.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that quite recently the House was sharply divided on this matter on a Motion of censure moved by Her Majesty's Opposition? Whilst there is speculation all around week after week, does he not realise that we cannot ourselves fail to speculate, if there is so much continued delay?

The Prime Minister: I think it is perfectly true that there is bound to be speculation when there are international discussions of this character going on. I regret it, but it is quite inevitable. But it would equally be great folly on my part to make an interim statement while those discussions are going on. I do assure the right hon. Gentleman that as soon as I am in a position to do so, I shall naturally wish to tell the House everything I can.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will discuss the problem of Cyprus with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

The Prime Minister: It is not the practice to disclose the individual topics for discussion at Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meetings.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister not aware that one of the Prime Ministers attending this Conference has had a long and distinguished record in opposing terrorism? Mr. Nehru was for seven years in prison for opposing terrorism. Would not the Prime Minister take advantage of the occasion of Mr. Nehru's visit here to get some good advice on solving the question of Cyprus?

The Prime Minister: I think there have been various experiences by various countries in this respect; and, so far as I can remember, at the last United Nations meeting India did not vote against the course which we are pursuing in Cyprus.

SECOND WORLD WAR (OFFICIAL HISTORIES)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister how many official historians are at present working at the Cabinet offices; and when they will publish the rest of the official history of the past war; and whether this will include a section on the Special Operations Executive.

The Prime Minister: The official histories of the war are being published in two series—civil and military. In the civil series 17 volumes have been published and four are in the press: seven historians are now engaged in writing the seven outstanding volumes. In the military series five volumes have been published; seven are in the press and 20 historians are now engaged in writing the remaining 19 volumes. It is not possible to say when publication of all the outstanding volumes will be complete. Aspects of the work of the Special Operations Executive will be covered in various volumes of the military histories, according to their subject matter, but it is not proposed to publish separately a general account of the work of this organisation as a whole.

Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend say whether the official historians have access to the Special Operations Executive files which other historians are not allowed to have?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is anything particularly abnormal in that. I think that the official historians do have access to documents of all kinds, which others may not have.

BROADCASTING (ANTICIPATION OF DEBATES)

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister if he will now state the Government's policy on broadcasting in anticipation of Parliamentary debates.

The Prime Minister: The Report of the Select Committee, which was published last Friday, is at present under consideration. A little time will be needed before a statement can be made.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the Prime Minister aware that, within its terms of reference, the Report of the Select Committee could not have made more clear what the Committee thought of the 14-day rule, and that in fact it is really a lot of mumbo-jumbo? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is in the best interests of the House to throw that mumbo-jumbo through the window?

The Prime Minister: It is in the best interests of the House that I have a little consultation with hon. Members as to what they wish to be done. That we propose to do before we make any further move.

COST OF LIVING

Mr. Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if, before further requesting trade unionists to forgo wage claims, he will reconsider recent Government measures which are raising the cost of living, such as cuts in the bread and milk subsidy, the imposition of Purchase Tax on necessities, charges on the health service, removal of housing subsidies and higher interest rates on house and school building.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. There can be no question of reversing these decisions.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Prime Minister aware of the growing feeling among trade unionists that the Government, unable to cut wages directly because of union strength, are securing the result indirectly by deliberately raising rents, food and other prices? Is it reasonable to expect a man you are clouting on the jaw to offer you his wage packet?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows, and the whole

House will know, that we are now engaged in trying to steady prices for the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, certainly we are. That is the best way of sustaining the value of wages.

Mr. Jay: Can the Prime Minister explain in simple terms why it helps in the battle against inflation to keep rail and coal charges down and push bread and milk prices up?

The Prime Minister: It is arguable to what extent subsidies form a good permanent part of the economy of the nation.

Mr. John Hall: Is it not a fact that, whereas wages used to chase inflation, we find the curious position now of the inflation chasing after wages?

PRICES (STABILISATION)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent further talks with chairmen of the nationalised industries in regard to stabilisation of charges.

The Prime Minister: A statement was made at the conclusion of this meeting, and I have nothing to add to it.

Mr. Davies: Having regard to the statement made by the Chairman of the Transport Commission yesterday, indicating that the Commission can only enter into a qualified stabilisation of prices, in view of its large deficit, will not the Prime Minister include in his statement some statement regarding the future finances of the Transport Commission? Does he realise that, because of the unwarranted interference of the Government with the Transport Commission, it is unable to meet its statutory obligation and is therefore limited in the extent to which it can maintain present fares and charges?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asked me what happened at the meeting. I referred him to the statement made at the close of it, which I think gives all that has to be said about it.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Prime Minister has told us about the decisions so far of the nationalised industries, and statements have been made; within proper limitations, we welcome them; but can he not


really give us some information as to what private industry is doing with regard to the limitation of prices? Is he not aware that so long as prices continue to go up, he is bound to have trouble about wages?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) knows that certain steps were taken by private industry at an earlier stage. I should like, if I may, to refer the House to the last words of the statement which we made, which was carefully drafted at our meeting, which says that
Ministers welcomed these further important decisions,
that is to say, the decisions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred,
and stated that they intended to continue to maintain contact with the T.U.C. and with the employers' representatives in the private sector of industry.
I think I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait.

Captain Waterhouse: Is it not a fact that certain sections of industry connected with the building trade did give a guarantee not to raise prices for six months, that they kept it, and have just had to forgo that intention now, largely because the coal industry has put up its prices?

The Prime Minister: They also made a further statement as to the next 12 months, which I think, on the whole, the House would regard as reasonable and fair.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that the statements as to what the Government's intentions are in the private sector are quite unsatisfactory, and that it will really create for the nationalised industries a most impossible position if, after they have pledged themselves not to raise prices, prices continue to go up in the private sector and therefore put up costs in the nationalised industries? Will he please reconsider the matter?

The Prime Minister: It is not a question of my reconsidering the matter. The discussions which we have had are continuing, and I have shown quite clearly with whom they are continuing. The right hon. Gentleman's question is, which comes before which? The private sector could complain hitherto that its raw

material prices were uncertain and it had a factor to deal with there. I am not saying which was right or wrong; but our objective is to get stability over the whole field.

Mr. Gaitskell: The nationalised industries have now given a series of pledges on this matter. I must press the right hon. Gentleman to say what further steps and proposals he is going to take so far as private industry is concerned.

The Prime Minister: It is quite true that nationalised industries have now made certain proposals, which we cordially welcomed and do welcome. It is equally clear that other discussions are to proceed. Beyond that, I am not prepared to go.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the undertaking given by the North Thames Gas Board to the effect that this Board intend to hold the price of gas at its present level for at least two-and-a-half years, subject to certain provisos; and whether he will give an assurance that instructions will be issued to all Government Departments to ensure that they take no action in the next two-and-a-half years to increase prices and services of their respective Departments and thus assist in curbing the inflationary spiral.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends and I have already emphasised that the national interest lies in achieving steadiness in costs and prices. We welcome all action which helps towards this, and my colleagues will work together to this end.

Mr. Lewis: We have heard a lot of platitudes this afternoon. In view of the fact that the nationalised industries have taken a positive step—and it is alleged that some private businesses have—will the Prime Minister now give a definite assurance that he will issue an instruction that the Departments which come under his control and the control of his Ministers will not take any action to increase the cost of living and thus push up wages, as is proposed by the rent increases and other proposals?

The Prime Minister: Our purpose is, of course, exactly the same; and I must remind the hon. Gentleman that when we began our discussions with various sections of industry, private and public, we were a good deal sneered at for the


attempt. Now, when I think we have made some progress—[Interruption.] I hope we shall make more progress, and the Government will play their part.

Mr. Lewis: Oh.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will let me answer his question, I am bound to call attention to the fact that the particular board which he draws attention to does also say,
Assuming … we do not have any major increases in the cost of labour or raw materials …
That, in itself, is a pretty wide reservation.

MALTA (FINANCIAL AID)

Mr. J. Griffiths: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the recent discussions with the Prime Minister of Malta in regard to financial aid.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I hope to make a statement tomorrow.

Mr. Griffiths: May we take it from the Answer of the Secretary of State that discussions are proceeding to seek a solution to the deadlock reached last week, and may we hope that both sides will bend their energies to that effect?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think it would help at all if I tried to anticipate my statement of tomorrow.

Mr. Bevan: May we, for our part, be permitted to express the hope that a constitutional approach of such fruitfulness will not be shipwrecked on a mere peccadillo at this stage?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would certainly share with the right hon. Member the hope that constitutional approaches will not be frustrated, but I ask him again to look at the Report of which he was a signatory, which had certain financial clauses in it.

Mr. Griffiths: We have no desire other than to see the question settled May we take it from the Answer of the Secretary of State that discussions are proceeding between him and the Prime Minister of Malta in the hope of settling the matter?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must repeat what I said before. It would not be fruitful if I tried to anticipate the form which my statement will take tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 2ND JULY—Supply [16th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on Home Office Affairs with particular reference to Aliens, Prisons, Police and Child Care.
TUESDAY, 3RD JULY—Supply [17th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on Economies in Government Expenditure recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It is proposed to take Supply formally and the debate will arise on a Motion to be tabled by the Opposition.
WEDNESDAY, 4TH JULY—Supply [18th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on the Mid-Wales Agricultural Report (Cmd. 9631) until 7 p.m.
The House is no doubt aware that the Chairman of Ways and Means has already set down an opposed Private Bill for consideration at 7 o'clock this night, namely, the Liverpool Overhead Railway Bill [Lords], Second Reading.
Committee stage of the Navy, Army and Air Expenditure, 1954–55.
Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Clean Air Bill; and the Lords Amendment to the Teachers (Superannuation) Bill.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Draft British Transport Commission (Compensation to Employees) Regulations.
THURSDAY, 5TH JULY—Committee and remaining stages of the Coal Industry Bill, which it is hoped to obtain by about 7 o'clock.
Consideration of the Motion relating to the appointment of a Select Committee on the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries.
FRIDAY, 6TH JULY—Second Reading of the Public Works Loans Bill; and of the Sexual Offences Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Leader of the House aware that, as announced, we propose to table a Motion for Tuesday's debate and that the terms of that Motion will be sufficiently wide to cover not only the question of economies in Government expenditure, but the economic situation more generally and, in particular, the alarming situation in the motor car industry?

Mr. Clement Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, once again, to look at the Motion to which I have had to refer so often lately? May I ask him whether he is aware that it was hoped that this Motion might be debated on Monday as part of the debate on the Home Office Vote? Apparently it cannot be raised on the Home Office Vote, nor can it be raised on the Vote of the Ministry of Supply. Apparently there is no way of raising this matter except by specific Motion. That being so, may I ask again whether the right hon. Gentleman can find time for a debate on this matter, which is of vital constitutional importance?

[That this House, being gravely concerned both over the efficiency and humanity of the security services in their actions and decisions as evidenced by the case of Mr. Lang, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to review again the machinery for dealing with cases which arise outside the Civil Service and to institute a panel of independent judicial advisers to whom the evidence in such cases can be brought for consideration and advice before action is taken so that, as recommended in the findings of the Conference of Privy Councillors, the public may be convinced that the procedures in force will not be exercised unreasonably.]

Mr. Butler: I can give no undertaking that there will be time to discuss that Motion, important though it may be. The right hon. and learned Member will realise that a great deal of time is being given to Supply next week and that it is not for us to choose the Motions on Supply. I am sorry that he has not been satisfied in this respect on the Home Office Vote. In reply to the Leader of the Opposition, we take note of what he says.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that debate on the Coal Industry

Bill, on Thursday, may possibly last longer than two or three hours? In view of the great importance of the ensuing business—Parliamentary accountability for the whole of the nationalised industries—would my right hon. Friend consider suspending the rule for the rather crowded programme on Thursday?

Mr. Butler: I will consider any means by which the Government can continue to get their business through up to date, but I anticipate that we shall be able to make progress with the Coal Industry Bill. Subject to what I have just said, I see no reason why we should not get through our programme that evening, but I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. H. Morrison: Does not the Leader of the House think that the programme for Wednesday is overdone? It is very long and very varied. Is he not expecting the House to swallow things at a gulp in an unreasonable way? Will he look at the programme again?

Mr. Butler: I really reads worse than it is. We have got through very much more business in a day than is set down for Wednesday. It has also been somewhat altered by the introduction by the Chairman of Ways and Means of Private Business. I will certainly look at it, but I think we shall get through the business.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I would rather discuss the plight of the small fixed income groups than any of the other business put down for next week in view of the fact that their case has been crowded out of the Finance Bill? They have a right to be heard in Parliament.

Mr. Steele: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's difficulty over Wednesday's business, and the fact that now we are told it will not take very long, may I ask whether it would be possible for us then to discuss the Motion in my name and the names of many hon. Friends, relating to the procedure of the House, and the suggestion that we might be able to get through the business by sitting at 10 o'clock in the morning?

[That this House is of the opinion that the pressure of Parliamentary business would best be relieved if Standing Order No. 1 were amended to provide for the Sitting of the House on the forenoon of each sitting day.]

Mr. Butler: I do not think that the hon. Member will expect me to give him complete satisfaction on that matter—[HON. MEMBERS "Why not?"] I can make no further comment on that. In reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), I would ask her to see whether she could not discuss next Tuesday the matter to which she has referred.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer he gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was most unsatisfactory? Without going into the particular merits of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion, I must say it raises very serious and wide issues. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not it is the intention of the Government to give some time to debate this vitally important matter before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Butler: No, I have consistently said that I could not give any undertaking on that matter, although I have never underestimated the importance attached to it by the right hon. and learned Member and other hon. Members.

Mr. Osborne: May I ask about Tuesday's business? Apart from the party political aspect, in view of the immense importance of the question, could my right hon. Friend see that we have an extra hour in which to debate its economic implications?

Mr. Butler: I should not like to guarantee an extra hour on a Supply Day. I think there should be time. I think that we should first have a look at the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition puts down.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), and as the Prime Minister appears to want Members of Parliament to set a good example to the rest of the country, would the Lord Privy Seal consider having a three-shift system for Members of Parliament to help solve the problem of the pressure of work and of our hours and conditions?

BRITISH MOTOR CORPORATION (DISCHARGED WORKERS)

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): The House will be aware of the decision of the British Motor Corporation, of which I was informed privately last Monday, to give notice today to 6,000 of their workers that they would be discharged tomorrow with one week's pay in lieu of notice. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a short statement about the arrangements which are being made by my Department to deal with the situation.
The employment exchanges will try to place as many as possible of the men affected in jobs near their homes, but it will not be possible for all of them to obtain employment in their locality. Through the normal interchange arrangements details of suitable vacancies in other parts of the Midlands Region and elsewhere in the country will be made available at the exchanges at which the men in question will be registering.
Among the opportunities for employment in the Midlands are a considerable number in transport and coal mining. I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and the Minister of Fuel and Power, who have been in touch with the British Transport Commission and the National Coal Board to ask them to do what they can to accelerate their rate of intake.

Mr. G. Brown: This is a very grave statement, and, with permission, I should like to ask three short but, I think, very vital questions. This company has—I should have thought, somewhat arrogantly—decided to pay no heed to the Minister's repeated requests that when industry is faced with this problem it should enter into adequate consultation with the other side, with the workers, and with the Ministry, in order that an adjustment may be made without undue trouble. I should like to ask the Minister what he feels he ought now to do to see that the employing side of industry pays heed to his requests.
Secondly, as he now says, I think quite rightly, that it will not be possible


for all those men and those left unemployed at Coventry to obtain employment in their locality, is he now prepared to consider the sort of things we did during the war to obtain mobility of labour, such as having travelling allowances and lodging allowances, accommodation and all the rest, so that these men may, if need be, move?
Lastly, as the company, in its statement, firmly attributes as the reason for these dismissals the Government's economic policy, is the Minister now willing to explain to the Prime Minister and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that until we have an end of this economic policy we are bound to have this impossible industrial position arising from it?

Mr. Macleod: I have said on many occasions that it is extremely desirable, when any changes are contemplated that will alter the strength of the labour force, that the earliest possible notice should be given to the men and to the employment exchanges so that their services can be usefully employed. I can understand the desire of the firm to postpone a decision like this as long as possible, but this load of work suddenly put upon the employment exchanges does make it extremely difficult for them, with the best will in the world, to carry out their functions and to provide the services which they want to give to the men affected.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's second question, I replied in some detail to him in a Written Answer, which will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Some of the questions about lodging allowances and fares, and so on, are covered by that Answer. Suitable powers are available. On the larger question of the economic policy of the Government, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have seen from the statement issued by the company that many other matters apart from that are involved in this decision it has taken.

Mr. M. Lindsay: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the very prompt way in which he has acted, may I ask him whether he agrees that every good employer in the country will strongly disapprove of the short notice which these men have been given? Will my right hon. Friend represent to the Chairman of the

British Motor Corporation that if it does not seek to mitigate the hardship involved by ex gratia payments in lieu of longer notice the Corporation will be most severely criticised by public opinion throughout the country?

Mr. Macleod: I indicated earlier, and I agree with my hon. Friend, that the amount of notice given in this case is profoundly disturbing. My hon. Friend mentioned my moving quickly. I have been, as I said, in touch with my right hon. Friends. I should, perhaps, add this also, in response to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), that yesterday the National Advisory Council for the Motor Industry had a meeting under the chairmanship of the President of the Board of Trade, and that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service went to the meeting and stressed to all those who were present the desirability of having as long notice as possible so that we can do all we can for everybody concerned.

Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend answer the second part of my question?

Mr. Isaacs: In view of the Minister's reference to the National Coal Board being informed of these men being available, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if an engineer or a carpenter is offered employment in the mines, but declines to take it, he will be debarred from receiving unemployment benefit?

Mr. Macleod: One cannot answer a hypothetical question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course one cannot. However, almost all the 6,000 men are semi-skilled or unskilled. I believe that only about 300 of them come into the category of skilled men.

Mr. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman stated that there is plenty of other work available in the Midlands. Is he aware that there is a very grave housing shortage in the Midlands? Can he say what is expected of those people discharged at Coventry if they are asked to find work in other parts of the Midlands? Has he any arrangement by which they can obtain housing accommodation in those other parts?

Mr. Macleod: I do not think that that problem is anything like as difficult as


the right hon. Gentleman suggests. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is."] No, it is not. It must be within the knowledge of the House that tens of thousands of people have found their way into the Midlands in recent years and found accommodation there.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend put the figures in proper perspective and agree that, although 6,000 workers have been displaced, there are still thousands upon thousands of vacancies in the immediate area of Birmingham and Coventry which are available? Will my right hon. Friend give us the figures of vacancies in relation to the number of men who have been displaced?

Mr. Macleod: There are many qualifications one has to make, but there are vacancies, and for men they are as follow: in Birmingham, just over 6,000; within reasonable daily travelling distance of Birmingham, 12,600; in the Midland region as a whole, 26,750.

Mr. Chapman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the management of the company summoned the joint consultation machinery at eleven o'clock yesterday morning but was by then already issuing the dismissal notices, and that it made it absolutely clear to the joint consultation machinery that it was not prepared to allow any consultation whatsoever on those dismissals? Is he further aware that, of the vacancies in the greater Birmingham area, it is not likely that more than 2,000 will be suitable for the men dismissed, 5,600 of them in the Birmingham area, by the B.M.C. and its subsidiaries? Is the Minister as complacent now as he has been throughout this year about the future of the motor car industry, despite all the warnings which have been given him from time to time?

Mr. Macleod: I did know the facts of the timing of the announcement, as the hon. Member has stated. I and my local exchanges have been—and for a long time, ever since short-time working started—carefully into the details of the jobs available but, of course, the number of pegs do not exactly match the number of holes. They never do, but as I have said, in answer to a previous question, the bulk of the people who are being discharged are unskilled and semi-skilled

people. For the small minority of skilled men there will be very little problem in that particular area. I have always been concerned with the future of the motor car industry and have never been complacent about it.

Miss Lee: May I ask that the House should be given time to discuss both the employment situation and the housing situation in the Midlands, as the two are tied together? Is the Minister aware that the answer which he gave about housing is completely inaccurate? Is he aware that, when he suggests that semi-skilled or unskilled men should move to the coal mining industry, he is forgetting that coal mining is also a skilled occupation? Since the right hon. Gentleman's answers have contained so many inaccurate and misleading statements, may I suggest that it is time that the House should seriously discuss together the two subjects that I have mentioned?

Mr. Macleod: I do not accept the last part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question at all. As to the first part, on the general point, we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition that he intends that Tuesday's debate should be wide enough to include the situation of the general economic policy of the Government, and, presumably, with reference to the motor car industry.
As to coal mining, work there is, of course, extremely skilled. As the hon. Lady knows, some of the trends of recruitment for coal mining have been reasonably satisfactory lately in the Midlands, and the National Coal Board is to arrange, as part of the special measures which we have tried to take—actually in the last few hours—to send special recruiting teams to the Birmingham area and organise local publicity there.

Mr. Edelman: To secure as calm a discussion as possible of this great national problem, will the right hon. Gentleman urge managements, like that of Standard's, not to use hectoring and bullying terms, as were used yesterday, to the trade unions pending negotiations?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. V. Yates: On a point of order.

Hon. Members: Why does not the Minister answer the question?

Mr. Yates: On a point of order.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the hon. Member's point of order?

Mr. Yates: On a point of order. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I made a gesture which was wrong. I had no desire to do that, but I want to put a point of order to you.
I am the only hon. Member who has four Questions on the Order Paper concerning this issue. I was informed that I was not permitted to withdraw those Questions in favour of a Private Notice Question. I submit to you, in view of this great blow to Birmingham, that hon. Members representing Birmingham should have an opportunity of putting questions. I should like to have the opportunity to put a question to the Minister and I ask whether I may be allowed to do so.

Mr. Speaker: It escaped my notice that the hon. Member had Questions on the Order Paper. They are not for today, I think, but for next week. I will bear that in mind on another occasion.

Mr. Yates: It is true, Sir, that my Questions were put down for answer by the Minister of Labour on Tuesday. I was prepared to consider withdrawing those Questions in favour of a Private Notice Question. I was not permitted to do so. I submit, therefore, that in those circumstances, and in view of the fact that this is such a vital matter to Birmingham, I was entitled to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Let me deal with one point of order at a time. I was not aware of all this that the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) tells me about his being prepared to withdraw his Questions. The hon. Member has Questions on the Order Paper for Tuesday and they will come up, and we are to have a debate on Tuesday, too.

Mr. Albu: On a point of order. Surely, if an hon. Member asks to put a Private Notice Question and he is informed that he cannot do so because he has Questions on the Order Paper a week ahead, it is quite wrong for a Minister to make a statement which would have been made if a Private Notice Question had been asked.

Mr. Speaker: Not so. By the practice of the House a Minister is allowed to make a statement at any time, if he thinks it in the public interest to do so. A Minister's statement is not barred by a Question on the Order Paper. In this case, there was a request for a Private Notice Question and it was barred by the Questions on the Order Paper but, nevertheless, the Minister, in his own discretion, thought it best to make a statement and that was quite in order.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Would you please be good enough, Mr. Speaker, to explain this, because there seems to me to be some confusion? We are given to understand that the Minister is entitled to make a statement, presumably because a matter is urgent. If that is so, why is a Private Notice Question not accepted because it is submitted on the ground of urgency?

Mr. Speaker: It is the rule about Private Notice Questions that they must not anticipate Questions of which another hon. Member has given notice. That applies as among Members. It does not apply to a Minister who desires to make a statement. He is the judge of whether it is urgent or not, and not I.

Mr. Macleod: Further to that, Sir, is it not a fact that in this case a Private Notice Question was debarred for the technical reasons that were given? It was to meet the convenience of the Opposition that I took the course of making a statement.

Mr. Speaker: That explains it. I really cannot hear any more about it.

Mr. Shurmer: With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that nearly all of the 6,000 men who are being dismissed are employed in factories in Birmingham, would it not have been fair to have given more than one Birmingham Member, of whom there are thirteen, a chance to air our grievances?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think so. I think that hon. Members in all parts of the House are interested in this matter.

Mr. Elliot: Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the statement which has just been made by the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a definite matter. At any rate, notice has already been given of a Motion to be discussed on Tuesday on this matter and I think that in those circumstances it is not eligible within the Standing Order.

Mr. Elliot: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, may I adduce this further argument—that the Minister himself has commented very strongly on the short notice given by the firm in question and the urgent desire which he had that further notice should be given in the case of this and other such firms? This was also commented upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay). I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is urgent because the notices are actually going out at this moment, and that there is an obvious desire on the part of the House to discuss the matter, and today is a much more appropriate day to do so than a day next week.

Mr. Speaker: The fact that the Minister commented adversely upon the shortness of the notice is a sign that he was not himself responsible for that shortness. All debates on the Adjournment must allege Ministerial responsibility. What the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) is now saying is that the Minister is responsible for this matter. He is not. He has detailed the matters which come within his own responsibility, and in that I can see nothing which is urgent and would call for a debate.

Sir I. Fraser: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. On that matter I must adhere to what I have said, that if there is a prospect of an early debate, as there is on Tuesday, the matter

is not within the Standing Order of the House.

Sir I. Fraser: On my right hon. Friends submission, Sir, does that mean that you will not hear further arguments on his submission?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, certainly.

Sir I. Fraser: Then may I submit to you two points? First, the matter raised—did you mean yes or no, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: I meant that I was not prepared to hear further argument on the matter because I have already decided it and, I think, decided it rightly.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1954–55

Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army and Air Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1955, and the application of surpluses to meet Expenditure not provided for in the Grants for that year, upon Wednesday next.

Appropriation Accounts for the Navy, Army and Air Departments, [presented 26th, 30th and 26th January, 1956, respectively] referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Heath.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for Two hours after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — DEATH PENALTY (ABOLITION) BILL

As amended, considered.

New Clause.—(WHIPPING.)

(1) Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment a person convicted of murder committed in the furtherance of any offence against sections twenty-three, twenty-five, twenty-six or twenty-seven of the Larceny Act, 1916, shall, if a male, be liable to be once privately whipped in addition to any other punishment to which he may by law be liable.
(2) Where a sentence of whipping is imposed under this section—

(a) in each case the court in its sentence shall specify the number of strokes to be inflicted and the instrument to be used;
(b) such whipping shall not take place after the expiration of six months from the passing of the sentence; and
(c) such whipping to be inflicted on any person sentenced to imprisonment for life shall be inflicted on him before he is removed to prison with a view to his undergoing his sentence of imprisonment for life.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Perhaps I should start by saying that the fact that I find myself moving a new Clause, the purpose of which is to promote the whipping of murderers, in no way modifies my personal position as being an opponent of the principle behind the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill. But as my hon. Friends and I see the situation if, as the Bill provides, the death penalty is to go, we as a House, ought to provide an alternative. I think that the promoter and supporters of the Bill must have had this point in mind when they drafted the Long Title of the Bill, which reads:
To provide (subject to an exception regarding murders by persons already serving a sentence of imprisonment for life) for abolishing, or suspending for a period, the passing and execution of the death sentence on conviction of murder and to substitute an alternative penalty therefor.
It is with that substitution of an alternative penalty, therefore, that my hon. Friends and I are particularly concerned in this proposed Clause.
It will be noted that several of my hon. Friends whose names are on the Notice Paper supporting this new Clause are themselves staunch abolitionists of the death penalty. While they want the death penalty to go, they none the less find themselves subscribing to this alternative penalty which the Clause would provide. It permits the flogging of men who commit crimes such as robbery with violence, armed robbery, housebreaking, burglary and armed burglary. It is permissive, not mandatory; that is to say, discretion as to whether the sentence is, in fact, one of whipping will be in the hands of the court.
In my view, far too much attention has been paid so far in the consideration of this Bill to the position of the murderer. Our attention has been focused on the miserable murderer and far too little attention has been paid to the victim and to the duty of this House to save the victim from his fate. This consideration, of course, is far more telling when the victim happens to be a woman or a defenceless child, or somebody who is elderly and is not able to protect himself or herself.
The anti-hangers have, so far, not claimed that hanging is not a deterrent. They have based all their arguments on the suggestion that hanging is not a unique deterrent. My hon. Friends and I suggest that if the House removes the one deterrent of hanging, we ought to put another deterrent in its place. There appeared in the Evening Standard last night a letter which, I thought, was very striking. It was under the heading, "Would the cat stop these crimes?" The letter was quite short and reads:
Does it seem odd to anyone else that our 'representatives' who have abolished the 'cat', 'birch' and are well on the way to disposing of capital punishment are now blaming the Home Secretary and the Police for increasing crimes of violence? Is it possible that the statistics about the deterrent effect of the above remedies may have been wrong? Is it possible that the majority view of the British electorate concerning the abolition of these remedies may have been right?
It is worth while to look for a moment at some of the statistics for violence against the person. In the last complete year before flogging was abolished by the Criminal Justice Act of 1948, that is, the year 1947, there were 2,504 crimes of violence against the person. Since that time they have steadily risen year by year


until, in the last year for which statistics are available, 1954, the numbers of such crimes were 4,584, very nearly double the original figure before flogging was abolished.
I know that the case which will be brought against me will suggest that the Report of the Home Office Departmental Committee advised the abolition of flogging and that it is against its reintroduction, but I would say to those people who are anti-hangers that they have flouted Home Office advice throughout the Committee stage of this Bill, so they should not be too squeamish about doing so again now.
I have paid close attention to the contribution made during the Committee stage by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) who, in columns 2089 and 2090 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, drew a comparison between the prisons of Peterhead and Barlinnie, and suggested that flogging had been given up at Peterhead as not being worth while. The simple and straightforward answer to the case put forward by the hon. Gentleman is that the best education that is still obtainable today is at schools where beating may take place, and where there is no question of a repercussion by parents taking out summonses against the headmaster. I cannot help feeling that if many of today's Teddy boys had been beaten at school, we would not be having trouble with them today.
There is nothing sadistic about this new Clause, neither does it embody the principle of an eye for an eye, but it does take account of the fact that most of the people with which it deals are cowards at heart. My hon. Friends and I believe that for those reasons flogging may be effective, and I hope that the House will accept the new Clause.

Mr. Geoffrey Stevens: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I wonder whether the House is expected to take the Clause seriously, or whether this is merely an attempt to delay the time of the House. I can well appreciate the point of view of those hon. Members who have some doubts about the wisdom of abolishing the death penalty, but I cannot understand the

point of view of anyone who brings forward a suggestion as childish as this.
I do not underestimate the point of view of those who have voted for the retention of the death penalty. As a matter of fact, it was only after a very long and anxious thought that I made up my mind on this matter and it was the fear that at some time there might be a miscarriage of justice and that in that case someone who was innocent might be hanged which decided me. I was once told by a Communist that I placed too much value on the importance of human life. Perhaps the same criticism has been brought against me by some hon. Members beside me.
Even if hon. Members wish to retain the death penalty, I can see no argument which could be brought forward by those who wish to do away with it to support the contention that people who have been convicted of these crimes shall be flogged. If it were possible, I should have liked to have moved an Amendment to the new Clause to the effect that if flogging were reintroduced, the person carrying out the flogging should be the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot). I hope that the House will not waste its time discussing the new Clause, but will quickly reject it.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: It is with a certain amount of regret that I follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), with whom I thoroughly agree, and with greater regret in view of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot). I feel like the Duke of Wellington who, when he reviewed his troops, said, "I do not know what effect they have on the enemy, but by God they frighten me."

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: It was not his troops, but his staff officers.

Mr. Rawlinson: His staff officers. I am obliged to that learned and distinguished historian who interjected for that correction.
Like the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, I have looked with great care and a certain amount of passion at this subject. I voted for the retention of the death penalty, but I certainly would not vote for the new Clause. I voted for the retention of the death penalty only


because I believed that it was a real and true deterrent and I know that some abolitionists have thought about that and have been concerned about whether or not it should be retained, because it was a great deterrent.
However, I cannot see the connection between a deterrent for the supreme crime of murder and this suggestion that whipping should be imposed, presumably a sentence purely as an act of vengeance by society, that because a man has sinned

in some way in the great measure society, therefore, should take its satisfaction and its vengeance by whipping him, and so to a certain extent, indulge its own passion for vengeance. Therefore, much as I regret it, and although I intend to vote against the Bill, I am certainly not in favour of a new Clause of this kind.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 187.

Division No. 246.]
AYES
[4.15 p.m.


Barter, John
Glover, D.
Mathew R.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gough, C. F. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gurden, Harold
Osborne, C.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Page, R. G.


Campbell, Sir David
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Crouch, R. F.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Dance, J. C. G.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Leavey, J. A.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McKibbin, A. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Freeth, D. K.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)



Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Arbuthnot and Mr. Stevens.


NOES


Albu, A. H.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Janner, B.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edelman, M.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham S.)


Balfour, A.
Fernyhough, E.
Keegan, D.


Balniel, Lord
Forman, J. C.
Kenyon, C.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Kershaw, J. A.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Benson, G.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
King, Dr. H. M.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Greenwood, Anthony
Lawson, G. M.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Lewis, Arthur


Blenkinsop, A.
Grimond, J.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Hale, Leslie
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hamilton, W. W.
MacColl, J. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Hannan, W.
McGhee, H. G.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hastings, S.
McGovern, J.


Brockway, A. F.
Hayman, F. H.
McInnes, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
McLeavy, Frank


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Herbison, Miss M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Maddan, Martin


Chapman, W. D.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Holman, P.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Clunie, J.
Holmes, Horace
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Coldrick, W.
Holt, A. F.
Mason, Roy


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hornby, R. P.
Maude, Angus


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Mayhew, C. P.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hoy, J. H.
Messer, Sir F.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hubbard, T. F.
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mitchison, G. R.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayreshire)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hunter, A. E.
Mulley, F. W.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Deer, G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Delargy, H. J.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Oliver, G. H.


Dodds, N. N.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oram, A. E.




Orbach, M.
Royle, C.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wade, D. W.


Oswald, T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Owen, W. J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Weitzman, D.


Paget, R. T.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Pargiter, G. A.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Parker, J.
Sorensen, R. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Paton, John
Steele, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Pitman, I. J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Popplewell, E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Proctor, W. T.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Pryde, D. J.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Ramsden, J. E.
Swingler, S. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Randall, H. E.
Sylvester, G. O.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Rankin, John
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Rawlinson, Peter
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Zilliacus, K.


Reid, William
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)



Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Thornton, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson and


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Mr. Kirk.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Usborne, H. C.

Clause 1.—(ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY.)

Mr. J. E. S. Simon: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from "murder" to the end of line 9 and insert:
and every enactment rendering an offender liable to suffer death in any case of murder shall be considered as rendering the offender liable to imprisonment for life:
Provided that—


(a) the court may order the offender to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure, if satisfied that the mental condition of the offender makes such a sentence more appropriate; and
(b) nothing herein shall be considered as affecting the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy or the power of the Secretary of State to release on licence a prisoner serving a sentence of life imprisonment."

The Amendment raises a question which was debated on Second Reading, whether the effective power of sentencing should be in the hands of the Executive or of the court. There was a general consensus of opinion in the Committee, both among abolitionists and retentionists, that it was desirable that the normal constitutional process, whereby the sentencing of a criminal is in the hands of the court rather than of the Executive, should be adhered to, provided that certain safeguards were admitted. The Amendment is an attempt to crystallise that consensus of opinion.
The very first recommendation of the Royal Commission contained these words:
The outstanding defect of the law of murder is that it provides a single punishment for a crime widely varying in culpability.
That outstanding defect is preserved in the Bill, in which a single penalty is provided

although a different one from that obtaining heretofore, for a crime widely varying in culpability. Normally, when the court passes from verdict to sentence, evidence is called about the character of the convicted man, the circumstances surrounding the crime and, in particular, his state of mind, so that the court may judge of the punishment, or even more, of the sentence suitable in all the circumstances. It may well be that the crime does not call for punishment. That is no less so in the crime of murder.

One of the cases which we have discussed very frequently in canvassing the main merits of the Bill is that of a woman who, finding herself about to go into hospital for an operation that might well prove fatal, murders her imbecile son, a fully grown man, who, throughout his thirty years or so of life, has been dependent upon her. Many hon. Members have drawn attention to the horrifying circumstances in which that woman, who everyone knows will be reprieved, is sentenced to death by the judge, as she has to be. Very properly the Home Secretary at the earliest possible opportunity releases her and advises the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy.

Under the Bill, the court will have to go through the horrible farce of sentencing that woman to be imprisoned for life. That is a strong reason for giving flexibility to the court, in sentencing for the crime dealt with in the Bill, such as is at its command in all other types of crime. As I understand it, the great argument in favour of the Bill is that murder is not an offence different from all other offences. On the contrary, as the Royal Commission pointed out time and time


again, it varies immensely in culpability, and is only too often admitted to be the product of a miserable life.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I have great sympathy with what the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) is saying. Previously there was one sentence for murder. Now we substitute for it imprisonment for life. Does the Amendment enable a judge to pass any sentence for a period less than life?

Mr. Simon: I shall not express any opinion on the law in the presence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is available to give us his view. I took the words from another Statute and I understand, subject to correction from my right hon. and learned Friend, that the words allow for a sentence of life imprisonment or for any other sentence which the court can impose. In other words, it can mean not only, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) suggests, a lesser sentence of imprisonment but those other sentences which the court can impose, such as conditional or unconditional discharge, probation, or even putting the offender on probation, particularly a young offender who is unbalanced, on condition that appropriate medical treatment is given.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) naturally puts the point in the most attractive way, but he might put the other side. I was wondering whether, in his opinion and intention, this would give a trial judge the right to impose sentences, shall we say, of fifty years' imprisonment.

Mr. Simon: My understanding is that the Amendment does not give that power, any more than does any other Statute which permits a sentence of life imprisonment, but my statement, of course, is subject to the correction of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. Before he intervenes, may I say that it was certainly the intention of my hon. Friends and myself that the sentence should be life imprisonment or a lesser sentence. Those words do appear in other legislation where the punishment is imprisonment for life and where there is a flexibility in the punishment. I should

be very grateful to hear the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I think I can help the House on this point. In my view, as the Bill stands, the court would only have power to impose a sentence of imprisonment for life. There would be no discretion resting on the court on conviction for murder to pass a lesser sentence than the sentence of imprisonment for life. The wording of the Amendment is, I think, appropriate to ensure that the court could, if it so desired, pass a lesser sentence than a sentence of imprisonment for life, but, of course, in passing a lesser sentence, it could pass a sentence for a fixed term of years, such as 40 years, which might in fact be hardly less than life.

Mr. Simon: I am much obliged to my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention, and I am sure we are all very grateful. As I understand it, these words do appear in other Statutes where the sentence is imprisonment for life. Curiously enough, the offences which attract liability to that sentence include such things as forging a will, and in these cases the court does not impose sentences of 30 or 50 years. Perhaps if the principle of the Amendment was accepted, that point could be further considered in another place to ensure that, since it is not our intention, a court of law cannot impose a sentence of 50 years.
The two points raised in the Committee stage were that the general principle was accepted that it is constitutionally desirable that the sentence on a convicted man should be imposed in public on evidence publicly tendered, and should be imposed under a code known to the law. Nevertheless, certain considerations should be borne in mind. The first was that there should be no trenching on the Royal Prerogative of mercy to be exercised on the recommendation of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was feared that, as the Clause was originally drawn, there might be such an impinging on the Royal Prerogative of mercy and also on the power of the Secretary of State to release on licence a person serving a sentence of life imprisonment. It was for that reason that the second proviso was put in.
The other objection, which was voiced, notably by the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) in an intervention, was the very serious consideration that in the crime of murder there is a substantial proportion of persons whose mental stability may be in question, and that it may be impossible for the court at the time of sentencing to have sufficient information or sufficient certainty to be able to impose a sentence of a fixed term of imprisonment. It was to meet that objection, which was a perfectly valid one, that the first proviso has been put in. In other words, in that type of case, where the court could not be absolutely certain what was the appropriate punishment, owing to the mental condition of the offender, and particularly owing to the difficulty of prognosis of that mental condition, it was thought right that the appropriate sentence to be available should be detention during Her Majesty's pleasure. In that case, therefore, the Home Secretary would have the full power to review the sentence periodically, if sentence is the correct term, and to release whenever he could feel sure that it was proper.
I apprehend that the main objection, because the principle will be generally accepted, is that it is undesirable to carry on the present procedure, whereby the Home Secretary reviews, and in fact imposes, the effective sentence of the court on secret evidence tendered in private and applying a code which is quite unknown to the public law of this land. The code of mental responsibility that is applied by the Home Secretary is something of which the law knows nothing, and it has been imposed on evidence privately tendered, when it might be said that it might be desirable to shorten the sentence. The answer to that is that that argument applies equally to all crimes. It is for the court to say what is the proper sentence. Murder is no different from any other crime in that respect, unless there is a question of the mental condition of the accused, and that is met by the first proviso.
The second argument which I apprehend may be put against the Amendment is that it might be desirable to lengthen the period. In other words, it is said that the judge, having reviewed the evidence, the circumstances of the crime and the mental condition of the accused,

might make a mistake by ordering a sentence which is too short, say, a sentence of 10 years, and at the end of 10 years it might be unsafe to release the accused. That argument I have heard advanced in this type of case, but let us see where it leads us.
That might apply in any other type of case as well as murder, and yet we take the risk, because it is constitutionally desirable that the sentence should be imposed in public and be imposed by judicial rather than executive organs. If it is really unsafe, it means that if there is a danger of the accused showing homicidal tendencies which were obviously not envisaged by the learned judge when he imposed the sentence—because if they had been, he would have ordered detention during Her Majesty's pleasure—if these tendencies have superseded, the proper course would be to certify. I have no doubt at all that a doctor finding that a prisoner, or any other person, was showing homicidal tendencies, would undoubtedly certify him as insane.
It is for those reasons that I commend the Amendment to the House. The whole basis of the Bill is that murder is a crime like other crimes. Let us, therefore, take the opportunity of restoring the constitutional priorities, and restore the power of sentence to the courts.

Sir Thomas Moore: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) has put his point with great persuasiveness and moderation. I am in complete agreement, in principle, with a large part of what he had to say. I should have been in even stronger agreement if I had had his support in getting rid of the death penalty, which alone enables him to move an Amendment to this effect. He is slightly inconsistent in speaking and voting against the abolition of the death penalty and then making the speech to which we have just listened.

Mr. Simon: I want to preserve flexibility in the court, and also preserve the death penalty. The two arguments are not really inconsistent.

Mr. Silverman: I should have thought that there was every inconsistency between voting in favour of the courts'


retaining not merely the most inflexible but the supreme penalty in every case of murder and, in the course of the same proceedings, advising the House of Commons to adopt a flexible penalty. How the hon. and learned Gentleman can think it right to keep a penalty inflexible in the case of death but render it flexible in the case of imprisonment for life is something which I am quite unable to follow.
Apart from that, I remember that the hon. and learned Gentleman moved an Amendment to the original Motion which led to the proposed legislation now before the House. I read the most interesting pamphlet which he, with some of his colleagues, prepared in relation to the anomalies in the law of murder, and I take it that his real purpose now is to apply some of the things which he was recommending in that pamphlet. In the debate upon the Motion, in reference to his Amendment, I said that although I certainly could not dissent in principle from much of what was said in the pamphlet—and which has been repeated today—nevertheless, as a matter of practice, the anomalies had no importance at all except in relation to the death penalty. If we get rid of the death penalty those anomalies are a matter of mere academic importance.

Mr. Simon: I am sure the hon. Gentleman wants to answer the points which I have put forward and not those which I have not. The Amendment has nothing to do with the anomalies in the law of murder; nor was the question of the appropriate organ of sentence argued in the pamphlet.

Mr. Silverman: Whether the hon. and learned Gentleman meant the Amendment to have anything to do with it or not, as he has drafted it, I am afraid that it has a great deal to do with it. Proviso (a) says that:
the court may order the offender to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure, if satisfied that the mental condition of the offender makes such a sentence more appropriate …
If that is not intended to remedy the anomalies in the M'Naghten Rules, I do not understand what it is all about.

Mr. Simon: It refers to the sentence; not to responsibility.

Mr. Silverman: Since the sentence must inevitably depend upon the degree of moral responsibility, and since it was the hon. and learned Gentleman's whole point, throughout this controversy, that the sentence should be apportioned and varied according to the varying degrees of moral responsibility, I cannot understand what he is quarrelling with me about.
With his intention to have that modification I have every sympathy, but if we once get rid of the death penalty it is quite sufficient to leave all these other questions, not merely to the discretion of the Home Secretary and Prison Commissioners, but also to their continuous review over the whole period during which the person concerned is in their charge. It may very well be true that upon the existing facts the trial judge may be able to decide what is the right thing to do.
4.45 p.m.
Do not let us forget, as abolitionists are sometimes unfairly accused of forgetting, that we are dealing with the crime of murder, and that where murder has been committed it is quite right that the culprit should be detained until the authorities best qualified to judge are satisfied that it is safe to release him. The position as to that may change from time to time, especially in the case of young offenders, and the promoters of the Bill prefer to leave it as it stands, relying with complete confidence upon the judgment, prudence and discretion of the Home Office to see that prisoners committed to its care as a result of this Measure are kept in proper custody, examined from time to time and released as soon as, but not before, it is safe to release them.

Mr. Rawlinson: Having heard the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), whom I have always thought to be motivated by considerations of mercy, I am rather surprised. In order to illustrate my argument, I should like to refer shortly to a personal experience which occurred only a few days ago, when I was defending a man who had killed his own child. He was originally charged with murder, but at the trial the prosecution accepted a plea of manslaughter and, because of that, the trial judge, having heard the


facts of the case and had one adjournment, and having indicated that in certain circumstances he might have put the man on probation, was able to sentence him to nine months' imprisonment.
That shows that, upon exactly the same facts, the trial judge thought that the man's punishment for the crime—which was originally charged as murder but was altered to one of manslaughter—might have been probation, but in any case should be no more than nine months' imprisonment. That surely shows that when this question is weighed up the trial judge, upon the public evidence given before him by witnesses who are called, examined and cross-examined—as they can be in pleas of mitigation—should be left to decide for himself what the proper sentence should be.
If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne had his way, in the case of a man pleading guilty to murder, a sentence of life imprisonment would have to be imposed by the judge, but in the case of manslaughter, apparently, the judge is allowed to exercise discretion. The only reason why there has been one fixed penalty in law for one crime, namely, murder, is that it is the supreme crime for which, in the past, the supreme penalty was demanded. If the promoters of the Bill had their way that penalty would be changed.
Why, therefore, should it not be within the discretion of a judge to decide what penalty a man should suffer for the crime he has committed? The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said that he has great confidence in those persons who, behind the scenes, decide what should be done to a man. Why should not he be equally confident in the judges, before whom can be called evidence both for the prosecution and the defence? I know that it can be said that there may be a change in the circumstances, but in the hon. Member's experience—and, I am sure, in the experience of other hon. Members on both sides of the House—cases occur where the question of the charge being one of murder or manslaughter is a very technical one, and where a sentence of death, as it used to be, or life imprisonment, as it might be if the Bill were passed, would be quite shock-making, and where everyone appreciates that, because of the peculiar cir-

cumstances of this crime, the man should be sentenced to a few months imprisonment, or may even be put on probation.
Some hon. Gentlemen seem to think that it could be better done behind the scenes. Why do not they argue that the responsibility for sentencing all other criminals should be handed over to the Home Office? How can it be said that a man convicted of attempted murder should not be handed over to the Home Office for that Department to decide how many months or years of imprisonment the man should suffer? Why should not the sentence be decided by the Home Office behind the scenes? Surely, the cardinal principle always has been that the man who commits a crime and is found guilty should appear before a court, before the public, the Press and everybody else. There he gives his explanation, pleads for mercy, and expresses the reason why he pleads for mercy, and then the judge decides. Surely, that is an honest and honourable principle of law which has been carried out in this country for many hundreds of years?
Now that there has been this change in the law where the supreme penalty has been altered and the penalty for murder is in the category of that imposed for other crimes, it is a case where it might be left to the discretion of the judge to decide the right punishment. That should be announced publicly, and the defence should have the opportunity of putting before the judge the reasons why mercy should be extended or refused.

Mr. Paget: When, day after day, we have heard hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite—even at the price of a not inconsiderable filibuster—seek to maintain a single, inflexible and rigid penalty for murder, it seems a little odd suddenly to find them demanding this flexibility. A few minutes ago I attended a meeting with a delegation from the Uganda Legislature. A member of the delegation told a story which seems to me not inappropriate to this matter. He said, "When you ride a bicycle, you may fall off the bicycle if you try to ride too fast or too slow". It would appear that hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite seem to favour the idea that, so long as this Bill "falls off a bicycle", they do not mind whether that happens because the bicycle is travelling too fast or too slow.
There is another highly important point. The judge should decide, on evidence given in court, what is the appropriate penalty commensurate with the proof in the evidence and for the protection of the public; and that sentence should always be subject to review by the Home Office, whether the crime be murder or anything else. There are a number of other questions which are relevant after the trial is ended. It must be decided whether a man should be kept in prison and denied his liberty. Consideration must be given to such questions as the way the man behaves in prison. It sometimes happens that he gallantly rescues a warder. All sorts of factors in his life are under consideration, and the Home Office must keep in mind that everyone in prison, whether for life or for a term of years, is in prison at the discretion of the Home Office; and that it is the duty of the Home Office to consider when it would be safe and proper to release them.
I agree entirely that this is not the appropriate time to introduce this proposal, unless the Government desire it. If the Government want it, I should not oppose it. There is a great variety of degree of guilt in murder. I remember once prosecuting in a case of murder and discussing the case with the judge. At one point he said, "The great difficulty with this case is that it is a plain case of murder and the appropriate sentence would be to suspend the gentleman's gun licence for six months." That is an indication of the variety and range of these things.
I am in favour of this proposal. It does not remove the discretion of the Home Office to consider every sentence. It introduces another and not undesirable discretion which could be, and is, exercised executively. I should not regret to see this brought about, provided the Government asked for it and were prepared to accept it. But it should not be imposed on the Government at this stage by anyone who regards this Bill with favour.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) considers that this Amendment is a good one and that it would assist in the administration of the law which would

follow were this Bill placed on the Statute Book. But I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman asked for the soft impeachment which he received from my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), because it seemed to me that the hon. and learned Member was endeavouring to make out a case for this Amendment which does not exist. In my opinion, he put his case much too high, as did also his hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), who supported him.
There was a time when I thought that an Amendment on these lines might possibly be necessary. But, on reflection, I do not think that the present Amendment is required for the purpose for which, apparently, the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West desires it. All that is sought to be done by this Amendment could, I suggest, be done more appropriately and effectively by the Prison Commissioners at a time after the trial when it is essential that it should be done, and when, in consequence, it would be much more appropriate to the circumstances of the case. Should this Bill ever become law, the sentence to be imposed in a case of murder would be imprisonment for life, which of course is the sentence that the court would have to impose. I am sorry that the Attorney-General is not now in the Chamber. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a rather important pronouncement, following a request from the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West, about whether, were this Amendment passed, a trial judge would have the power to impose a lesser sentence than one of life imprisonment in the case of murder.
With respect to the Attorney-General, and in the hearing of the Solicitor-General, I must say that I was surprised to hear that opinion being expressed to the House. Of course, we are grateful for any help and advice given to us by the Attorney-General, and we only wish that he and the Solicitor-General were present more often to proffer such advice when it is needed.
5.0 p.m.
How the Attorney-General makes good the view which he gave the House I do not know. The terms of that Amendment are clear. They provide that as a substitute in certain circumstances for a


sentence of life imprisonment, the court may order that the offender should be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. That does not seek to confer upon the court or on Her Majesty's judges the right to make the sentence pronounced less than a sentence of imprisonment for life, other than in the circumstances to which I have already referred, of the offender being detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. Apart from that, it is only the Prison Commissioners who are empowered from time to time to review the case and, if proper to do so in the circumstances, they can either release the offender, or reduce the sentence. Any such power that it is said by the Attorney-General the court would have if this Amendment were passed is non-existent.
There is another reason why the proposed Amendment becomes unnecessary. It is rather not so much "unnecessary" as "unsuitable". This is because of the powers conferred upon the Home Secretary. He has the right and, indeed the duty to intervene in any case of imprisonment, for life or a shorter term, if the circumstances are such as to demand his attention and to require revision of the original sentence, and if the circumstances of a case should develop so that it is right that there should be a release or a diminution of the original sentence, then that power is in the hands of the Home Secretary. I say nothing about the Royal Prerogative, because that is another matter, and, in any event, it would be exercised only in a special case.
In those circumstances, I cannot see that the Amendment will add any useful purpose to the Bill. I have consistently been against the Bill altogether, but that does not mean that I should stand by and see added to the Bill a lot of unnecessary Amendments which would not improve it in any way. For these reasons, I shall vote against the Amendment.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. W. F. Deedes): I have listened to the arguments deployed in favour of the Amendment with close attention and a good deal of sympathy. The general principle will, of course, be accepted by my right hon. and gallant Friend that the determination of penalties is a matter for the courts and not for the Executive.
The many hon. Members who have urged my right hon. and gallant Friend to reduce sentences which they regard as excessive know that he will not, except in the most exceptional circumstances, use his power to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in order to substitute some other penalty for that which the court has thought it right to impose. I hope, therefore, that no hon. Member will think that my right hon. and gallant Friend and I are in favour of the Executive invading the proper sphere of the judiciary.
But I believe that when we come to murder the difficulty which would confront the courts in determining the length of the sentence and the disadvantages which flow from a fixed sentence are such that there ought to be a departure in this class of case from the general principle, as there is already in respect of life sentences, from which the Secretary of State has a statutory power to release on licence when he thinks fit.
Let me indicate briefly what these difficulties and disadvantages are. Some, but not all, were partly anticipated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon).
The appropriate period of detention for a murderer will often depend on considerations which it is either difficult or impossible for the court to have before it, but which can be considered by the Secretary of State. It would be difficult for the court, for example, to hear evidence about the character of the deceased, though it might be very relevant to the moral culpability of the offender.

Mr. Rawlinson: Does not that happen in a case of manslaughter?

Mr. Deedes: The immediate answer to that, as to certain other points made by my hon. Friend, is that we are still dealing with murder, which I accept as something quite apart from any other crime. The fact that we are altering the penalty has no bearing on that point.

Mr. Simon: I am sure that the Under-Secretary will try to meet the point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson), that the argument that one cannot call evidence as to the character of the deceased applies equally to murder and manslaughter.

Mr. Deedes: The arguments that I am advancing are in respect of murder, which I say is in a class apart.
I have mentioned the character of the deceased as a relevant factor to the court or to the Home Secretary. It would in the nature of things be impossible for the court to know how the prisoner's character would develop. Faced with a man in his early twenties, how could the court know whether it would be necessary to keep him in prison for the rest of his life or whether 20 years would adequately protect the public? That sort of decision can be taken only in the light of the development of the individual's character as it matures. How can the court foresee that in the case of a young man?
I now come to the second difficulty. One result of the difficulty of fixing the appropriate sentences might well be that there would be indefensible discrepancies between the sentences imposed in roughly similar cases. Some discrepancies in fixed sentences no doubt occur now, but they matter less in relation to relatively short sentences. The difference between a sentence of 20 years and one of 30 years would be another matter, and serious inequities might arise.
In Committee some hon. Members suggested that the difficulty which the court would have in fixing the appropriate sentence, and the possibility that it might fix sentences which turned out to be too long, could be overcome by the Secretary of State reviewing the sentences. But, except in the case of sentences of life imprisonment, where the Secretary of State has power to release on licence, a prisoner can be released before the normal term only by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative; and the Royal Prerogative should be used only in exceptional circumstances and not as a regular means of reviewing sentences imposed by the court. To use it in this way would be likely to lead to conflict between the Executive and the courts.
There is also the difficulty that a prisoner serving a fixed term would be released without the control which the licensing system gives, and murderers whom the Secretary of State had good reason to think to be still dangerous might have to be released without any power to supervise or recall them.
Then there is the opposite difficulty, which my hon. and learned Friend anticipated but did not, I think, completely answer. Suppose a court is mistaken in its estimate of the prisoner's character and gives a comparatively short term for a murderer whose mentality, character and conduct, as they become known in prison, make it obvious that he will be a danger to the public when he is released. The Secretary of State will have no option but to release him. There will be no control as there is when a life prisoner is released on licence, and no means of recall.
My hon. and learned Friend has attempted to overcome some of the difficulty of a fixed sentence by enabling the court to order detention during Her Majesty's pleasure on the ground of the prisoner's mental abnormality. This would introduce into English law something akin to the doctrine of diminished responsibility, but much wider in its scope. My right hon. Friend feels that this ought not to be done, as it were, by a side wind. The implications should be fully considered, and if diminished responsibility in any form is to be introduced, then it should be done by legislation specifically directed to that end. I would add that, because the Amendment is wider than diminished responsibility, it would create anomalies in Scotland.
In Scotland, a jury can bring in a verdict of culpable homicide on the ground of diminished responsibility only if the prisoner's mental state borders on insanity and is associated with some disease of the mind. A verdict of culpable homicide leads to a sentence of imprisonment and not to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure. It would be anomalous if, where a jury found insufficient mental abnormality to bring in a verdict of culpable homicide, the court could nevertheless sentence to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure on the grounds of mental abnormality.
It is not apparent on the face of the Amendment what is to be done with people ordered to be detained during pleasure. No power is provided comparable with that in the Criminal Lunatics Act to order their removal from prison to a particular institution, and no provision is made for releasing them on licence. Are they to remain for the rest


of their lives in prison? If so, I am not clear why they should not be sentenced to life imprisonment.
I have indicated why my right hon. Friend thinks that this proposal is impracticable, but the greatest objection to it seems to us to be this. If we are to forgo what I believe to be the uniquely effective deterrent of the capital penalty, then let us at least put in its place the heaviest alternative penalty available. Where is the deterrent if a murderer can cherish the hope that he will get off with five years? And what is the public to think if the House removes the death penalty and leaves it open to the courts to give murderers a conditional discharge?
Let us retain at least some distinction to set murder apart as the crime of crimes. This Amendment reduces murder to the level of burglary, except that it is not open to the burglar to say that he is not quite normal and ought, therefore, to be sent to something other than imprisonment. I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. If it is, my right hon. Friend and I shall feel bound to vote against it.
Question, That the words proposed to be left out, to "requiring" in line 7, stand part of the Bill, put and agreed to.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas L. S. Nairn: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out from "enactment" to "sentence" and insert:
or rule of law whereby apart from this Act a court would be required to pass".
While I certainly do not agree with the purpose of the Bill, I am quite convinced that the penalty for murder must continue to be the same throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. The Amendment in no way seeks to alter the law of Scotland. It seeks to make sure that the penalty attached to murder will remain the same throughout the whole country. The point raised by the Amendment can be stated briefly. In England the passing of sentence of death is a matter of statutory enactment. In Scotland the death sentence is passed by virtue of the common law. It is necessary in order to make it quite clear that the whole of subsection (1) of the Clause shall apply to Scotland, as it already applies to England, to refer not only to

any statutory enactment but also to any rule of law which requires the death sentence to be passed on a person convicted of murder. The Amendment provides accordingly.

Mr. William Whitelaw: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

Sir William Anstruther-Gray: I rise to speak only because I was a little surprised by what my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Nairn) said about the law relating to murder being the same in Scotland as it is in England. Of course, that is not so.
That was the basis of an Amendment which I moved at an earlier stage to exclude Scotland from the operation of the Bill. It is quite clear that in Scotland the penalty for murder is not inevitably a sentence of death as in England, because there are two very definite positions where the penalty is reduced. Firstly, there is the question of diminished responsibility, and there the Scottish system is much more lenient to any murderer of whom it can be argued that he was not in full possession of his senses. Secondly, there is the question of constructive malice.
In England it is possible for a man to be convicted of murder and sentenced to death if, in fact, he did not intend to commit the crime of murder. In Scotland, it is very nearly true to say that we have practically reached the position where only intentional killing is murder. I make these comments only to support the line which my hon. Friends from Scotland and I have taken throughout, that there was an even stronger case for opposing this Bill in Scotland than there was in England.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end to insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any offence on active service for which the penalty of death is prescribed by the Army Act, 1955, the Air Force Act, 1955, or the Naval Discipline Act.
It will be remembered that on the Committee stage I moved an Amendment completely to exclude the Services from the effects of the Bill. It was one of those Amendments upon which there was a


Division and a very close decision. In the course of the debate on that Amendment, a great many of those who favour abolition agreed that there was a great deal of merit in that Amendment. With the exception of a mere handful of hon. Members, almost the whole of the Committee agreed that the death penalty should be retained—I wonder whether this delightful parley below the Gangway opposite can cease for a moment? Even though I was trained on the Guards parade ground, I cannot compete with the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), when it comes to talking. I am accustomed to interruptions in another profession but not the steady stream of interjections between the hon. Member and his Chief Whip on this occasion.
I should like to come to what is really the one Amendment, as I see it, on which I hope to extract a concession, if not from the hon. Member, then out of the whole range of his supporters bar nine. There are ten Members of the House who have emphatically stated that they are against the death penalty at any time for anything, and I appreciate their views. I have a list of those ten Members. They represented their views in 1955, when they voted quite clearly, and they have stated that they would vote for the abolition of the death penalty for treason, for treason felony, for mutiny, for murder and for everything. The rest of the House has indicated that in certain circumstances it is prepared to retain the death penalty. The question now before the House is, what is to be the scope of that retention? By a very small margin, the House rejected the view that the Armed Forces should be excluded altogether at all times, a view which was closely argued and reasoned and lost, but by a small majority.
I think it quite clear that the House desires that on active service—by which I mean on active service overseas—under courts-martial, the death penalty shall be retained. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure the retention of the death penalty in that very limited sphere.
Let me take one or two examples of what might arise. In the case of active service in time of emergency in a Colony, for example, such as Cyprus or Malaya, there would be the situation that whilst

the local civil court retained the death penalty, none the less on court-martial a soldier would not suffer the death penalty. This would obviously cause the gravest resentment in the Colony. I have no hesitation in saying that on that basis any Colonial Secretary would be bound to support the Amendment.
If a soldier on active service during an outbreak of terrorism in an emergency in, say, Cyprus were convicted by court-martial of murder, he would be sentenced to life imprisonment, yet if he were engaged with another person who was a civilian, the civilian would go before the civil court and sustain the death penalty. That is one example. In time of actual war, on active service, is it really to be said that the soldier who shoots an N.C.O. or soldier or officer with intent to desert or other intent is to escape the death penalty by committing the act of murder, whereas if he is had up for mutiny or a lesser offence he would none the less sustain the death penalty?
The difficulty of the Bill, and I must repeat it, is that it is drafted in a thoroughly slipshod fashion. Since the Committee stage, the promoter of the Bill has had abundant opportunity to amend it and to clear the ambiguities. He has not done so, because he and a few odd Members who support him want to abolish the death penalty for everything. On the other hand, as I see it, the majority of the House wants to abolish the death penalty for civilian murders committed in the United Kingdom.
The purpose of the Bill as it is promoted and as the general public understand it is to cover the case of a civilian murder which takes place in this country, and nothing more. That is what the public believes that the House is dealing with at this stage. In fact, however, when the hon. Gentleman was asked in Committee whether he took the view that his Bill included courts-martial, he stated that it was his view that the word "court" in Clause 1 covered courts-martial as well. I take the contrary view.
It will be remembered that the Attorney-General on that occasion expressed the view of the Government that the matter was highly ambiguous and should be cleared up, and that it should be cleared up on the Committee stage. The hon. Gentleman has not cleared it up upon Report stage, and it is for that


reason that I propose the proviso embodied in the Amendment. I urge the House and those, on both sides, who are abolitionists—not those who are retentionists, who would obviously support it, but those who have been consistently supporting abolition—to give some consideration to this matter.
I will give two or three brief examples. In time of war overseas in, say, Germany or in Soviet Russia, or in other circumstances, do we really want an anomaly in which a person on active service if tried for murder would not command the death penalty, whereas if he were tried for other offences, like treason, mutiny or desertion in the face of the enemy, he would command the death penalty? Secondly, do we really want a state of affairs which is violently in conflict with N.A.T.O. and with the Colonial Territories, when one law in the territories prescribes the death penalty and another law, emanating from this country, does not? It seems to me that the case is overwhelming, and I remind the House that when this matter was considered, many views were expressed by hon. Members opposite in which they made it plain that they did not want to exclude the death penalty in cases of those who were serving on active service.
I should say by way of clarification that the words "on active service" are defined in the new Schedule, "Murder committed on Active Service", which I have tabled and which appears on the Order Paper. It is true that "active service" is defined in Section 224 (1) of the Army Act, 1955, but that does not include also what is known as "deemed active service". To make it quite plain, I have included "active service" and "deemed active service" in my Schedule. I have taken advice that it is properly drafted.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The new Schedule does not refer to this Amendment.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am referring to the Schedule merely to show that it defines the words "on active service" which affect the Amendment I am now moving.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the Schedule will be selected.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I rather appreciated that it might be.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would not make sense. If the hon. Member's next Amendment, which deals with the new Schedule, is not to be called—it is not selected—the Schedule will fall.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Davies: When I gathered that the next Amendment would not be called, I had a word to see whether the Schedule, which can be linked to either of the Amendments, might be linked to this Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Let me deal with the first point of order, and then I will take the next.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I will pass from this point. I was saying that the definition of murder committed on active service is a definition which is applicable equally to this or the other Amendment, whichever is selected. This Amendment having been selected, I can apply the Schedule to it equally well.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: But the hon. Gentleman cannot link the Amendment with the Schedule, because the Schedule is not related to this Amendment.

Mr. Rees-Davies: In that case, it would be necessary, in my view, to insert the definitive Schedule at another and appropriate stage, and the definition would clearly be that which is contained in this Schedule. The House need not now deal with the point, which is not important to the point of principle.
I would conclude by urging, whatever else we may argue about in the long stages of this Bill, do not let us make fools of ourselves not only to the country—if they understand this point—but to the rest of the world. Do not let us have a different law oversea for men on active service from that which exists in those countries. Whatever view hon. Members take, one way or another, I ask all hon. Members, other than those in favour of abolition in every case, to support the Amendment and, if it is not accepted, to press it to a Division.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Before I deal with a point of order, I think we should have a seconder to the Amendment.

Mr. Paget: If my point of order were correct, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that would be unnecessary. In my submission, this Amendment is out of order. The Bill provides:
During the continuation in force of this Act, no person shall be sentenced by a court to death for murder".
Neither the Army Act nor the Air Force Act—nor, indeed, the Naval Discipline Act—contains the word "murder" at all. The offences which are made subject to the death penalty there do not include murder.
The only way in which a court-martial can try a charge of murder is under the Section which occurs in each of those Acts making an offence against the civil law triable by court-martial. If, as a result of this Bill, the offence of murder, being an offence against the civil law, does not carry the death penalty, then whether the Amendment be passed or not, it still does not carry the death penalty. The effect of the Amendment, whether it be passed or not, is therefore exactly none.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. and learned Member was arguing more the merits of the Amendment than whether it was in order. In any case, as he knows, I am the Deputy-Speaker, and Mr. Speaker has decided that this Amendment should be called. I think we must stick to that, if I have a seconder for the Amendment.

Sir T. Moore: I beg to second the Amendment.
I feel that the Amendment has been so convincingly and clearly explained by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) that there is little or nothing which anyone except a lawyer can say. All who have been on active service would admit that the justification for the Amendment stands out a mile and cannot even be argued, but legal factors arise which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has already brought to notice and with which the legal profession can more aptly deal than can a layman. I therefore content myself with formally seconding the Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) was inclined to be a little impatient with me because he thought that he had not my full attention. No one can match the hon. Member for grace, courtesy and politeness, but we will do our best, and I can assure him that I did follow his argument and that my conversations with my hon. Friends were not intended to disturb him, and flagrantly they did not disturb him. If there was a tendency to treat the hon. Member with less than due seriousness, I hope he will not think it offensive on my part if I say that he himself has contributed a little to that. He treated us in Committee to a most impassioned and emotional appeal about a matter which was sub judice—

Mr. Rees-Davies: It was not.

Mr. Silverman: We thought it was.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Then the hon. Member was wrong.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Speaker, too, thought it was. I dare say we were all out of step except the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Silverman: No, I will not. We remain out of step in good company, and the hon. Member must make the best of it. It turned out later that his facts were completely and entirely wrong and that there had been no such murder at all.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member is quite wrong. Will he give way?

Mr. Silverman: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member is entirely misrepresenting me.

Mr. Silverman: As I have said, there was no such murder—

Mr. Rees-Davies: That is quite untrue. There was.

Mr. Silverman: There was no such murder as that which the hon. Member sought to excite us about; it was an accidental matter for which a boy of 15—

Mr. Rees-Davies: On a point of order.

Mr. Paget: We all know that it is not a point of order.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Surely it is not in order, on an Amendment dealing with the armed forces, for the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to raise the question whether, in Committee, I was or was not raising a matter which was sub judice in relation to a murder which was a civil murder of a child. I ask for your protection in this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, from the hon. Member's gross misrepresentation, when, with his usual lack of courtesy, he is not even prepared to give way.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that point of order arises on anything which has happened during this debate.

Mr. Silverman: If further pursuance of this matter embarrasses the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, I am prepared to leave it where it is. I was only giving him an opportunity of making the explanation and apology to the House which anybody but him would have thought called for.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Silverman: No.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Then where is the opportunity?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think we shall do better with one speaker at a time.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet had his opportunity when he made his speech.
I will come to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and I should like, first, to deal with his first point—the point which, as he rightly says, he raised in Committee, too. It is the point whether the Bill, unamended, would apply to a court-martial. I accept absolutely his account of what took place in Committee. He thought that the Bill as drafted would not apply to a court-martial. I thought that the Bill as drafted would apply to a court-martial. The Attorney-General told us that the matter was doubtful and that there was much to be said on both sides.
I understand that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet remains of the opinion which he held in Committee. I assure

him that I remain of the opinion which I held in Committee. But may I point out to him that if his view of the law is right and mine is wrong, then he does not need this Amendment. His Amendment would be completely unnecessary on the view of the law which he says is the correct view of the law. Therefore, he would, no doubt, not think it necessary, in spite of what he said at the end of his speech, to ask the House to divide, because if he did he would be asking the House to pass an Amendment which he confesses is unnecessary.
The hon. Gentleman's second point was that everybody except the nine or ten people, of whom he quite correctly reminded the House I was one, who are against the death penalty in any circumstances under the Army Act or in any respect, should be in favour of the Amendment and only those nine or ten hon. Members should be against it. That, I think, depends on a complete misapprehension, or misconception, as to what the Bill is about and what the Amendment is about, and what the Amendment was on the occasion to which he refers when a minority of nine or ten of us voted against the death penalty.
What was involved on that occasion was the death penalty for offences under these Acts. I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is perfectly right when he says that there is nothing in any of the Acts which are mentioned in this Amendment which has anything to do with murder at all. If he is right, the passage of this Amendment would add nothing whatever to the law. There is no such inconsistency as the hon. Gentleman thinks—and I hope that I may have his attention now.
What we are concerned with is murder only. Although I myself would like to see the death penalty abolished in these Acts for offences other than murder, the only offences to which these Acts relate are not an issue on this occasion at all. Whether this Amendment is passed or whether it is rejected, the death penalty under these Acts will remain exactly as it was before and the hon. Gentleman need not trouble himself about many of the questions with which his speech was concerned. No offence other than murder is touched by this Bill, whether under these or any other Acts or at common


law. We are dealing with murder and with murder alone.
What the hon. Gentleman is saying is something which I perfectly well understand but which, in all sincerity, I do say would not be accepted by the overwhelming mass of ordinary opinion in this country, whether it wants to retain the death penalty or whether it wants to abolish it. Although it sounds a most monstrous thing to say, the hon. Gentleman is obviously saying that we are to abolish the death penalty for every kind of civilian murder in this country—the worst of them and the least of them—all those that he himself got so synthetically excited about in Committee. In all those cases he is saying to the House that the death penalty should be abolished, but that we should inflict on young soldiers in Cyprus a penalty which we are not to inflict on the hardened, premeditated, gainful murderer in this country.
Does he really think that that is a proposition which will commend itself? We take the young soldier at the age of 18. He may have had three or four months training. He may be a band boy. We send him to Cyprus in circumstances of this kind and, because perhaps in a moment of great strain, possibly of great provocation, he does something that he regrets a moment later but which results in somebody's death and it is murder, because he does that in those circumstances, in Cyprus, he is to be subject to a graver penalty than would be inflicted in this country on murderers of a very much worse and more objectionable kind.
One can understand the hon. Gentleman's argument about treason, about treason-felony, about desertion in the face of the enemy. I understand that argument very well but, as he himself agrees, it is totally irrelevant to this discussion. What we are really being asked to do is to make this distinction between civilians living normal lives at home and soldiers—perhaps young soldiers—living lives of great difficulty—at any rate, abnormal lives—subjected to exceptional strains in other parts of the world, and instead of drawing that distinction in favour of the man living the abnormal life under strain the hon. Gentleman seeks to draw the distinction in favour of the hardened criminal living a normal life at home.
I cannot follow that argument. I do not know why he thinks it a suitable one to advance here. I say no more about it, because I am quite confident that if the hon. Gentleman does not withdraw his Amendment—as I hope he may yet do—the House will reject it and reject it with great emphasis.

5.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry not to have heard the very beginning of this discussion, but I heard the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in regard to it. He referred to the view he had expressed in Committee as to the extent and application of this Bill and to the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), and, indeed, to my own view. He said just now that his view had not altered. My hon. Friend said that his view had not altered. I should like to add to this chorus by saying that my view has not altered either.
After the decision in the Farnsworth case in 1918, there is, I think, no doubt at all that the word "courts" in the Bill is wide enough to cover a court-martial. There is no doubt about that. The doubt arises in the context as to the extent of the application of the Bill, if it becomes a Statute, outside this country. It, I think, has been well stated in the last edition of Maxwell on Statutes—and I will quote from that edition—that
… in the absence of an intention clearly expressed or to be inferred either from its language, or from the object, subject-matter, or history of the enactment, the presumption is that Parliament does not design its statutes to operate on its subjects beyond the territorial limits of the United Kingdom. They are, therefore, to be read, usually, as if words to that effect had been inserted in them.
If that passage is correct, then, in the absence of any indication in the text of the Bill, its application is limited to courts and courts-martial sitting in Great Britain. It is deliberately excluded from courts and courts-martial sitting in Northern Ireland. But it may be argued—and this is why I say there is a doubt—that, as a person can be tried only by court-martial in this country for a murder committed outside this country, or, under the Naval Discipline Act, for a murder committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, the intention of this Act in relation to abolition was to apply it to


courts-martial wherever they might be held.
It is for that reason that I adhere to the view that, in its present form, the Bill does leave this matter in a state of doubt, and, having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I must admit that I am not at all clear as to which way he wanted that doubt resolved. I gathered that he was inclined to accept the argument advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that really the Bill did not apply to courts-martial at all—

Mr. Paget: indicated dissent.

The Attorney-General: I hope I have not misunderstood it; I gathered that the hon. and learned Gentleman was saying that, under the Army Act, there was not an offence of murder. I hope that was the effect of it.
I do not share the hon. and learned Gentleman's view about that. If he would look at Section 41 of the Army Act as at present in force, he will see there is a specific reference to a person being liable to suffer death if convicted of murder. I should have thought that the terms of this Bill would affect that. The matter is, therefore, in some doubt at present.

Mr. S. Silverman: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said has me a little confused. The last quotation he introduced is one from the Army Act, which he says provides that the penalty for murder shall be death. One takes it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view is that that would be binding on a court-martial anywhere in the world.

The Attorney-General: I was not putting it in relation to anywhere in the world. As the hon. Gentleman may know, if one looks at the Section one finds that a person cannot be tried for murder, and certain other offences, committed in the United Kingdom
unless such person at the time he committed the offence was on active service, or such place is more than one hundred miles as measured in a straight line from any city or town in which the offender can be tried for such offence by a competent civil court".

Mr. Silverman: I apologise for intervening, but it may shorten matters. My

doubt originated from the fact that the Bill is drawn in this way:
During the continuance in force of this Act, no person shall be sentenced by a court to death for murder …
The Attorney-General says that that will cover a court-martial in this country but may not cover one somewhere else. The Clause then goes on:
and every enactment"—
including the Army Act—
requiring a court to pronounce or record a sentence of death in any case of murder shall be construed as requiring the court to sentence the offender to imprisonment for life.
Why does that not dispose of the point?

The Attorney-General: I do not think it does dispose of the point, but it leaves it in doubt having regard to the fact that there is an express exclusion of Northern Ireland and there is no indication that this Bill is apparently seeking—which one would not normally expect to do in the Bill—to amend the Army Act, the Naval Discipline Act and the Air Force Act. One would expect any amendments of those Acts properly to be made in those Acts.
I think a powerful argument can be advanced both ways. All I am saying is that the matter is still in doubt. That is the position as I see it. I cannot say which way it would be resolved after a lengthy argument, but I felt it was desirable to make the position clear as it is at present, in view of the argument that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne advanced that my hon. Friend's Amendment was really pointless because it had nothing at all to bite on.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne developed an argument about National Service men being subject to a different liability in an overseas territory from that operating in this country, if this Amendment were accepted. I would only add this correction or addition to what he has said, that it ought to be borne in mind that in any event that would, of course, be the case in a Colony or territory where the death sentence was retained because, ordinarily, the civil courts would have the power of trial for the offence of murder within those territories. I say "ordinarily," but I thought the argument as put by the hon. Gentleman, with great respect to him, was put too high, bearing in mind the fact that


the soldier and civilian within territories overseas would be subject to the law of those territories overseas.

Mr. Paget: I want to understand this, and I should like to ask one question for the sake of information. The jurisdiction of a court-martial to try for murder is there because murder is an offence against the civil law. Section 41, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, merely limited that jurisdiction in the case of murder, but not of other civil offences, to cases occurring more than one hundred miles away or cases on active service. It is a limitation of jurisdiction.

The Attorney-General: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the limitation on jurisdiction is not confined only to the offence of murder. The list includes treason, manslaughter, treason-felony or rape, in addition to murder. There is a specific reference in Section 41 which gives a court-martial power to try for civil offences, and subsection (2) of that Section in terms says:
If he is convicted of murder, be liable to suffer death".
Therefore, I would myself have said that, on one view, at least, this Bill does bite on that provision and would operate in a somewhat unusual form to effect an amendment of it. But as to its extraterritorial effect, that, I think, is still in doubt.

Mr. George Wigg: The Attorney-General has quoted Section 41 of the Army Act which at present exists. That Act comes to an end very shortly, and we shall have a new Army Act. Has he faced the situation which would arise when the new Army Act comes into operation in a short time?

The Attorney-General: Yes. I think there still is doubt.

Mr. Paget: I am sure we all want to understand this; may I just put this question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? The position of a court-martial trying a case of murder is that it is not trying an offence created by the Army Act but it is trying an offence created by the civil law. Therefore, when we look at this Amendment, we see that murder is not an offence for which the penalty of death is prescribed by the Army Act; it is an offence for which the

penalty of death is prescribed by the civil law. The jurisdiction to try arises from the provision which gives courts-martial the right to try a man for committing an offence against the civil law. Therefore, if the offence against the civil law is one which does not carry the death penalty, then, whether it be a court-martial or a civil court, the court is trying an offence which does not carry the death penalty.
Section 41 is not a Section which confers jurisdiction; it is a Section which limits jurisdiction. Those words may occur as to the penalty being death, but they occur in the course of a limitation, not in the course of a creation of jurisdiction.

The Attorney-General: I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Section 41 is the Section which confers jurisdiction upon courts-martial to try for civil offences. The jurisdiction so conferred is subject to certain limitations, and there I entirely agree. The offence of murder is a common law offence. The jurisdiction of courts-martial to try for murder is conferred by the Statute, and it is made an offence for the purposes of Army Act, Section 41 in terms saying that on conviction of murder a person shall be liable to suffer death.
For those reasons, I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that what Section 41 does is to impose a limit on the jurisdiction which would otherwise exist. I must say that, in my view, the Bill as it now stands may affect those provisions.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: I find myself in some difficulty, which arises because the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to Section 41 of the Army Act of 1955, whereas I want to look at Section 70 of that Act. I agree with what hon. Members opposite are trying to do, but I do not like the way they are trying to do it, although they told me privately that their object is the same as mine. As I see it, the Army Act provides a code of discipline, and I do not want a code of discipline of the Armed Forces to be tampered with by means of a side wind. We laboured for two and a half years to stop that process, and now at the first temptation it seems that the Government are to allow to start again the very thing we tried to stop, so that in 40 or 50 years'


time the House of Commons will find itself in as difficult a position as we found ourselves in two or three years ago.
I say with great respect to the Attorney-General that, having listened to him, I do not know whether I am coming or going. I know what I want to do and I know what the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) wants to do. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) understands my position. I should be very much helped if the Attorney-General gave the House an assurance that if we rejected the Amendment the Government would undertake to amend Section 70 of the Army Act, 1955, if necessary so as to do what we want. If I am not clear I am very sorry, but I must confess that I find myself to be in a muddle.

The Attorney-General: I ask the leave of the House to speak again. Section 70, subsection (3) is a similar provision to the one to which I have referred in Section 41. If I understood the argument of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) aright, he does not want this Bill to apply to a court-martial at all. He says that any alteration to the Army Act, the present Act or a new one, should be made in the Army Act.
A very strong argument can be advanced for that. I am not trying to express a view on the Amendment. All I am seeking to point out is that as the Bill stands it can be argued, and argued convincingly, that it applies to courts-martial which can be held in this country—and a court-martial can be held in this country for a murder committed outside this country. There is a doubt about the application of the Bill to courts-martial outside this country Of course it is the hon. Member's Bill. The Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet—I will not say anything about the language in which it is expressed—is intended to secure and put beyond doubt that at least for persons on active service a court-martial should be able to continue to pass sentence of death in appropriate cases.

Sir Patrick Spens: I concur entirely with what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that as the Bill stands there is the gravest doubt

about what the effect would be on courts-martial. I think there can be no question that there is the possibility of a court-martial having to try a case of murder elsewhere than in this country and, quite clearly, the Bill would operate on any sentence that that court-martial could give.
I think it is clear both in the present Army Act and the present Naval Discipline Act that the court-martial has jurisdiction to try murders overseas both in our Colonies, where our troops are stationed and in foreign countries, because murder is a civil offence and the disciplinary Acts make a civil offence also a Service offence. In that way, the court-martial gets jurisdiction to try murder. There is the gravest doubt whether a court-martial operating overseas today would be affected by this Bill or not. We would get the very anomalous position that a soldier tried by a civil court here at home would not suffer the death penalty and a soldier tried by a court-martial overseas for a similar offence would have to have the sentence of death pronounced on him. Of course, what happened after that would be another matter.
The more serious point from the point of view of courts-martial is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who moved the Amendment. We now have our forces constantly serving with Commonwealth forces and constantly serving with forces of foreign countries. There could very well be a murder committed jointly by a soldier of our forces and a soldier from a Commonwealth country. Both would be tried by court-martial.
At present, so far as I know, soldiers from Commonwealth countries are all liable to the death penalty for murder—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] There may be exceptions, but we would get the anomaly that if the Bill applied to courts-martial generally our soldier would get off and the Commonwealth soldier would hang. We would get the same situation if our soldier were tried by a court-martial for a crime committed with a civilian in a country where the death penalty is applied. Then the civilian would hang and our soldier would get off. The whole situation created by the Bill raises the gravest difficulties under the disciplinary Acts for the Armed Forces.
It requires the most serious consideration as to what is the proper thing to be done in reference to courts-martial. My personal view, which I urge most strongly, is that if this Bill becomes law and abolishes the death penalty in this country, the Government would be bound to bring in a fully thought out and carefully drafted Bill to deal with the whole of these Acts affecting the forces. What is to be done in the meantime? Our forces are on service and we must save the situation at least in regard to those forces which are on active service in various parts of the world at present.
Therefore, although I think this Amendment is utterly inadequate as a final clearing up of these very grave matters, I personally would support it and I hope that everyone who cares for the discipline of the forces will do the same.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: The interventions of all the learned right hon. and hon. Members have not, I think, clarified for most of us what the legal position is. I was not certain about it and I am less certain now that I have heard the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), whether this Amendment would clarify the matter. I think that there would still be some legal doubts which would have to be cleared up in some other way.
One thing we can be certain about is that even if this is a clarification the Amendment would be a clarification in the sense of providing a different penalty for the civilian crime of murder according to whether it was committed by a civilian in this country, or a soldier in this country—who would be subject to court-martial, but, I understand, tried in this country by the civil court—and, on the other hand, a soldier serving abroad and tried by a court-martial abroad.

Sir P. Spens: The right hon. Member will realise that that only applies to soldiers on active service. It would then be a Service offence which had been committed.

Mr. Younger: Many hon. Members feel that if there is to be any clarification it should be in the sense of assimilating the fate of the civilian to the fate of the soldier and not of differentiating between them. I noticed on re-reading the debate on the Army Act and the Air Force Act, to which reference has been made—the

debate at the end of 1955—that one of the arguments constantly put forward for resisting Amendments to those Service Acts was that at that time there was the death penalty in our civilian law. Therefore, it would be quite wrong, by a side wind, to change the main law of our country.
Now we are having the thing put back to front and it is said that it would be wrong, by a side wind, to change Service law by a change in civilian law. I think that these arguments have not been put forward on their merits or with clear-headedness, but because those who put them forward wish to see the death penalty retained in as many cases as they can possibly arrange.
I myself feel that there is a very simple issue here and it is this. For those of us who would like to see the Service man put into the same position in this respect as the civilian, no matter where he may be serving, we can put out of our minds altogether all offences on active service which partake of the nature of treason, that is to say, offences which affect the conduct of operations or assist the enemy. Those are not, I think, in question here. We are not discussing that. We are considering only offences which are the same sort of offence as the civilian crime of murder—

Mr. Paget: Only murder itself.

Mr. Younger: Yes—and whatever else this Amendment may do, it certainly does not assimilate those types. It differentiates them, and whatever the rights and wrongs of the learned legal argument may be, that is the point we have to bear in mind, and I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Walter Elliot: It seems to me that this shows the difficulty in which the country will be put by trying to deal with this matter by a Private Member's Bill. We now find that we are amending the Army Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We are making a change whose effect nobody can explain. The supporters of the Amendment bring forward one view, the opposers of the Amendment bring forward another view, and a Law Officer of the Crown, given the responsibility of advising the House, says he cannot give the House any advice.

The Attorney-General: With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I had hoped I had made the advice I gave clear. If not, I will try to put it again, since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) did not seem to understand it either.
The advice I gave was that the Bill as it now stands leaves the question entirely in doubt. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says that it does not, but I thought that when I was putting the present argument in detail I had his assent to it. The Bill as it stands leaves in doubt whether or not the Bill applies to courts-martial overseas. That is in doubt. The Amendment—and I shall not comment on its wording—at least elimimates that doubt in one way in relation to courts-martial on active service.

Mr. Elliot: If I may say so, I do not think that the learned Attorney-General has put the House in a very much clearer position than it was before. This is an enormously important matter. He says that the Bill as it stands leaves the matter in doubt. He does not recommend the House either to pass or to reject the Amendment. That is not a position, it seems to me, in which the Government can possibly stand.
When it is suggested that as a result of this a further Bill clearing up the position under the Army Act would need to be—[Interruption]. We on this side have great difficulty in putting a case to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I am trying sincerely to put a case of great difficulty, and I find the hon. Member engaged in a private conversation with one of his hon. Friends. I am in doubt whether he is able to accept the argument I am putting forward. It is of great importance.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am following.

Mr. Elliot: It was suggested that a further Statute would have to be brought forward to clear up the position because of his desire to abolish the death penalty for all these offences—

Mr. Silverman: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was able to follow my argument. No doubt it was my fault if he was not. I tried to make it clear. If I failed, let me make it clear now that this Bill refers only to murder

and to nothing else whatever. Whatever views I may have, whatever preferences I may have, about the death penalty for other offences under other Acts here or in other places, are completely irrelevant, and all that the House is concerned with in this Bill and in this Amendment is the offence of murder and the offence of murder alone.

Mr. Elliot: Yes, I had grasped that, but I think that the point the hon. Gentleman was bringing forward was that in its train this Bill would bring consequences which would involve inevitably a further revision of the law.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: No. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) said that.

Mr. Elliot: Yes, but I thought that was said from the other side of the House, too.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) said it.

Mr. Elliot: It has been said on both sides. However, let us assume that it has been said on only one side of the House, it still certainly has been said. If I have attributed to the hon. Member any view which he did not advance, I beg his pardon. There is enough difficulty about this without our having any confusion of that sort. I take it that he did not advance this view, but it seems to me that the Bill would involve further amendment of the law. Nor do I think that it would stop there.
On a previous occasion I tried to indicate the repercussions this Measure would have on legal systems for which the House has a considerable responsibility in territories overseas. I hope to develop that later, but it shows how impossible it is to neglect the position of this country as the centre of a vast and extended web of responsibility running throughout the whole world. I do not think it is an appropriate thing that we should deal with the matter here by a Private Member's Bill. I certainly think it is utterly inappropriate to deal with it, with its repercussions upon that web of responsibility throughout the rest of the world, by a Private Member's Bill, but into that position this House is being led by this legislation now before us.

Mr. Angus Maude: I do not think I can let what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) has just said go without comment. His speech should be a warning to me about what happens to laymen when they get into an argument between lawyers, but as I have understood this matter it really is not so very difficult. If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was correct in what he said at the beginning, there is no question whatever that this Bill will apply to courts-martial, and no difficulty arises. If my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) is right, it does not apply to courts-martial. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General says it is in doubt.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) also says that there is great doubt, but he then says that the anomaly we shall get into if we leave things as they are is that a soldier may be sentenced to life imprisonment on active service for the crime of murder whereas a civilian acting with him may be hanged, and he regards that as an anomaly. I really cannot see that we are making this any better by ensuring that he will be hanged, too, when we are trying to ensure that

nobody in this country shall be hanged for murder.

As to the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend that we ought to withdraw the Bill or to defeat it simply because the time of Parliament may be taken up in amending the Army and Air Force Acts, I have never heard such a preposterous suggestion in my life. If a majority of this House is determined to abolish the death penalty for murder in this country we really cannot be deterred from that by the thought that we may have to indulge in a little more time on legislation to amend other Acts.

I hope that the House will stick firmly to the point, which is that if we are to abolish the death penalty for murder in this country, abolish it for all our citizens, we really should not be deterred by considerations of further legislation. Nor should we seek to make distinctions in the crime of murder as committed by the same sort of people in different circumstances. I for one could not accept that for a moment. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 168.

Division No. 247.]
AYES
[6.20 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McAdden, S. J.


Arbuthnot, John
Fell, A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Ashton, H.
Fisher, Nigel
McKibbin, A. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Barber, Anthony
Glover, D.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Barter, John
Godber, J. B.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
McLean, Nell (Inverness)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Gough, C. F. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Bishop, F. P.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Macpherson, Niell (Dumfries)


Black, C. W.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, W. H.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mawby, R. L.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Builus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfd)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Moore, Sir Thomas


Campbell, Sir David
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Channon, H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hope, Lord John
Nairn, D. L. S.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Neave, Airey


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Oakshott, H. D.


Crouch, R. F.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Osborne, C.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Page, R. G.


Cunningham, Knox
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Davidson, Viscountess
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. McA.
Kimball, M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Profumo, J. D.


Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Raikes, Sir Victor


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rawlinson, Peter


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Redmayne, M.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Longden, Gilbert
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick &amp; L'm'tn)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridsdale, J. E.




Robertson, Sir David
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Whitelaw W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wigg, George


Sharples, R. C.
Touche, Sir Gordon
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Turner, H. F. L.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stevens, Geoffrey
Vane, W. M. F.
Woollam, John Victor


Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Vosper, D. F.



Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Studholme, Sir Henry
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Mr. Dance and Sir F. Graham


NOES


Albu, A. H.
Hannan, W.
Owen, W. J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Padley, W. E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hastings, S.
Paget, R. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hayman, F. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Hinehingbrooke, Viscount
Parker, J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Holman, P.
Paton, John


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Holmes, Horace
Peart, T. F.


Benson, G.
Holt, A. F.
Pitman, I. J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hornby, R. P.
Popplewell, E.


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Proctor, W. T.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pryde, D. J.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ramsden, J. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, H. E.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Bowles, F. G.
Hunter, A. E.
Redhead, E. C.


Brockway, A. F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Royle, C.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Chapman, W. D.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Silverman, Julian (Aston)


Clunie, J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Keegan, D.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Kenyon, C.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kershaw, J. A.
Steele, T.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
King, Dr. H. M.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lawson, G. M.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-On-Trent, C.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Swingler, S. T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sylvester, G. O.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Deer, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Delergy, H. J.
McGovern, J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Dodds, N. N.
McInnes, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Wade, D. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Warbey, W. N.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Maddan, Martin
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudderafd, E.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Wheeldon, W. E.


Forman, J. C.
Mathew, R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fort, R.
Maude, Angus
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mayhew, C. P.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Messer, Sir F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Green, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mulley, F. W.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Grimond, J.
Oliver, G. H.
Ziiiiacus, K.


Hale, Leslie
Oram, A. E.



Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Orbach, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, W. W.
Oswald, T.
Mr. K. Robinson and Mr. Kirk.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12—

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Member not going to move his first Amendment, in page 1, line 10, leave out from "this" to end of line 12 and to insert:
subsection shall not apply in the case of a person convicted of murder if, in consequence

of a sentence of imprisonment for life, or of a sentence of death commuted to imprisonment (other than imprisonment for a specified term of years), he was, at the time of the commission of the act which caused the death, undergoing or liable to undergo imprisonment in Great Britain, and was not lawfully at large at that time; and for the purposes of this proviso 'imprisonment' includes penal servitude, detention and any similar punishment"?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not moving that Amendment. I wish to move the second Amendment in my name, Sir.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. I am taken considerably by surprise by what the hon. Baronet—I think that is the hon. Member's right title—has just said, because it had been agreed between us, as I understood, that he was to move the first Amendment in his name, in page 1, line 10, which you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker. We were at considerable pains to discuss its effect and its consequences. If the hon. Baronet now does not move the Amendment, which it would be within his right, then in view of the understanding that we had and the fact that I am taken by surprise, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, for leave to move a manuscript Amendment to leave out lines 10, 11 and 12.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know anything about an arrangement, but the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is at liberty to move the Amendment in page 1, line 10, himself if he so wishes.

6.30 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: On a point of order, Sir. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has suggested that there was some understanding between him and myself. May I say, in fairness to myself, that I told him what I was doing? It was because of the fact that the Prime Minister had given an undertaking that the Parliamentary draftsman would be available to assist with the drafting of this stage of the Bill. It was necessary for improvements to be made to the drafting of an Amendment which the Committee had inserted and which was, frankly, a home-made Amendment. I asked the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne what was his intention, and I asked him specifically if he would care to put down the Amendment himself. He told me not only that he would not do so, but that he would oppose it if I put it down.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know anything about that. I am concerned only with what happens in the House.

Mr. Silverman: I do not think that you, Sir, are concerned in any dispute which may take place now or hereafter, or which took place before, between the hon. Baronet and myself. You are concerned

only with what happens now. I am in your hands, Sir, and I should be grateful for your advice and assistance.
I want to delete the proviso which would have had to be deleted in any case if the hon. Baronet had moved his Amendment. I told the hon. Baronet that it was unnecessary for me to put down an Amendment to that effect because his Amendment raised the question, and for me to put down an Amendment would have been redundant. What I want to do is to move to delete the proviso. I would prefer to do that by a manuscript Amendment rather than accept your suggestion that I myself should move the Amendment which the hon. Baronet does not wish to move. If, however, I have only the second choice open to me, then, of course, I shall accept it.

Mr. Speaker: As a rule, I have an objection to manuscript Amendments at this late stage in a Bill, on the general ground that the House has not been given notice of them, but this Amendment has been on the Notice Paper, and it is in order for anyone to move it.

Mr. Silverman: Very well then, Sir. I am grateful for your permission.
I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from "this" to the end of line 12 and to insert:
subsection shall not apply in the case of a person convicted of murder if, in consequence of a sentence of imprisonment for life, or of a sentence of death commuted to imprisonment (other than imprisonment for a specified term of years), he was, at the time of the commission of the act which caused the death, undergoing or liable to undergo imprisonment in Great Britain, and was not lawfully at large at that time; and for the purposes of this proviso 'imprisonment' includes penal servitude, detention and any similar punishment.
I have moved this Amendment not for the purpose which the hon. Baronet had in mind, because all I want to do is to leave out the proviso and put nothing in its place, but because it enables me to leave out the proviso and leaves it to the House to decide whether anything shall be put in.
I have moved it for these reasons. In Committee, the hon. Baronet succeeded in carrying, by a majority of four, an Amendment in the terms of the provso to this Clause—
Provided that this Act shall not apply in any case in which the murder was committed by a person already serving a sentence of imprisonment for life.


I do not propose to weary the House with all the reasons which were advanced in the Committee stage against that. I described it then as a mere piece of quite monstrous nonsense. The murder contemplated by this proviso has never been committed either in this country or in any other country, and I said that I thought it simply made the House of Commons ridiculous.
One can imagine an intelligent and sympathetic foreign observer, in either an abolitionist or retentionist country, looking, as many of them are looking, with the utmost interest and sympathy to what the House of Commons has been doing in this matter over some weeks, and imagine him saying, "What curious people they are in the House of Commons. They decide repeatedly and by decisive votes"—I wish that the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) would do me the honour of paying attention. He complained when people dared to speak when he was addressing the House.
They will say abroad, "What curious people compose the British House of Commons. Repeatedly, and by substantial majorities, they express themselves in favour of abolishing the death penalty for murder. They are invited over many, many hours to consider a series of exceptions and Amendments. They are invited to make an exception for the cold, calculated, premeditated poisoner. They are invited to make an exception for the sex maniac. They are invited to make an exception for the felon who kills a policeman or civilian in the course of commiting another felony. They are invited to make an exception for child murder. They are invited to make exceptions—

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: On a point of order, Sir. All that this Amendment does is to substitute certain words for the words which are in the Bill. If this Amendment were made it would not affect in any way the matters which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is now discussing. I submit that all that is in order on this Amendment is to discuss the effect it would have on the wording of the Bill, and that it is not in order to go into the general merits of the proviso, which I had expected the hon. Gentleman to put down an Amend-

ment to delete, and which he has refrained from doing.

Mr. Speaker: I did not notice that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was out of order.

Mr. Silverman: If I may continue with my argument, Sir, the foreign observer would say that the House of Commons had been invited to make all those exceptions on plausible and often attractive grounds. Then he would say, "What curious people they are, rejecting all those. They rejected every suggestion of an exception, every suggestion of an Amendment in all those cases where murders, and sometimes the most atrocious murders, are committed and, having rejected all those exceptions, they then solemnly make an exception in the case of the only murder that has never been committed in their country or anywhere else within living memory." That really gives rise to a ridiculous position and I am sure that the House will be grateful for the opportunity to put it right.
As for the intervention of the hon. Baronet, in this Amendment two questions are involved and it is not necessary for the House to come to the same conclusion on each of them. The House may decide yes in one case and no in the other. I would advise the House to say "Yes" in the one case and "No" in the other.
The two questions are these. The first Question which Mr. Speaker will put to the House will be, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill." I should invite the House to vote "No" at that stage. If the House votes "Yes," nothing else can be inserted and the Bill will remain as it left the Committee. If the House votes "No," then the proviso is out and Mr. Speaker would, presumably, then put the next Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill." At that stage the House would be within its rights, and I myself would so invite it, to vote "No." In that event, the proviso would have been taken out of the Bill, which I would strongly advise for the reasons I have given to the House.

Mr. Paget: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Simon: We ought to take cognisance of what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is asking us to do and of the advice that he has given us. He said that what had happened in Committee was such as to lead foreign nations to say, "What curious people they are in the British House of Commons", but what he is asking us to do is to pass a Bill which will contain the words in subsection (1) and go on to say "Provided that this…"

Mr. S. Silverman: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not consider it necessary to take up the time of the House by further pursuing that point. I had seen the consequences which the hon. and learned Gentleman is about to explain to the House. There are ways, I understand, of putting that right if the House should decide to delete the words which I have proposed that it should delete.

Mr. Simon: I will continue to point out what the hon. Gentleman is asking the House to do. He is asking it to pass a Clause which will result in leaving the words "Provided that this", and, unless further Amendments are tabled, the Clause will go to another place in that form. If in another place something is inserted in place of the gap that this House will leave and this House should disagree with it, it means that under the Parliament Act, as I understand it, we shall be faced with either losing the Bill or passing a Bill which will go down to perpetuity with the words "Provided that this". In that case, foreigners will not say, "What curious people they are in the British House of Commons". They will applaud the hon. Gentleman and the whole Bill, in concept and in draftsmanship, as a triumph of parliamentarianism.
I suggest that we should think very long before carrying that out, particularly because the House of Commons has already, in Committee, discussed the principle at stake, voted on it, and carried it into effect. What my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) has sought to do is merely to correct the drafting. I suggest that, rather than bring about the result which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne wants, we should carry the Amendment in its entirety.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) said that the House has already agreed to something in principle and was now proposing to alter it. Do I take it that he will not be voting against the Third Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that arises. We have some distance to go before we come to the Third Reading.

6.45 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: As the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is leaving the Chamber, he will not hear, perhaps because it would embarrass him, what I have to say.
I shall advise my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment. When I tabled the Amendment, I did so with the hon. Gentleman's full knowledge and full agreement, because I did not want him to be under any misapprehension at all as to what the position might be. I asked him, as I said previously, whether he himself would undertake responsibility for the Amendment because it was his Bill and the Amendment was designed to improve the Bill. Indeed, no hon. Member in the House has said this afternoon anything other than that that is the effect of it. It is a very small effect, and I do not think that the House would wish me to go into the details.
I was expecting the hon. Member either himself to move to exclude the proviso or to put his name to the Amendment. I was not expecting the result which has occurred. I am bound to say that it appears to me that the hon. Member was taking advantage of the machinery of the House to try to deceive a number of hon. Members, when there are no Whips—he knows that I have Whips—into going into the wrong Lobby. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I must say that, and I am sorry that the hon. Member is not in his place to hear it.
The position is this. I do not wish the Amendment to be made at this stage, but it may well be that if the hon. Member succeeds in his plan—after all, there are not very many hon. Members present in the Chamber, so there may be a number who may be deceived—[HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] By this dodge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Chicanery."] The position would be that only three words would be


left. I apprehend, Mr. Speaker, that in those circumstances you would not call me to move the next Amendment, which I certainly desire should be made to the Bill. In those circumstances, I think it would be better that we should go ahead and carry this Amendment, and that will give me an opportunity to explain the reasons for the second Amendment.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is something very uncandid and unsavoury about the proceedings on the Amendment that we are discussing. As I understood what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—I am sorry that he is not here—it was that he wanted to indulge the House in what, in my considered opinion, is an unsavoury piece of tactics to use. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry if my hon. Friends do not like what I say, but it is true on the hon. Member's own statement as to his intentions.
My hon. Friend, first of all, chided the hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) because he failed to move the Amendment standing in his name, which he had a perfect right to do if he did not wish to move it, for it was a matter for himself to decide. My hon. Friend was rather concerned about that alteration in the proceedings, because, apparently, he had figured out that he might be able, if the Amendment were moved, to get rid of the proviso to Clause 1, which undoubtedly makes the Bill ludicrous. So he rose and objected to what he regarded as a default on the part of the hon. Baronet.
Then my hon. Friend proceeded to exercise what I suppose he had a right to do, an option to adopt the hon. Baronet's Amendment. My hon. Friend made it abundantly clear to the House—Mr. Speaker I should like your guidance on this in due course, if I may have it—that his purpose in adopting and moving the Amendment was not that he wanted the Amendment, but that he wanted the back door result of getting rid of the proviso. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is wrong with that?"] I will tell the hon. Member what is wrong with that; it is not honest. I will tell him why it is not honest. Those who voted for the proviso, previously, knew that it was then on the Notice Paper and that there would be a

vote on it. They came here to exercise their right to vote one way or the other as Members of Parliament, upon a very grave matter.
Now my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne wants to get rid of that proviso in circumstances in which certain hon. Members do not know of that fact. If there were a vote resulting in the disappearance of that proviso, it would leave those hon. Members in the position of not having had notice and, therefore, not being in the House even to vote. That is not, in my view, a proper procedure. It has the effect of putting down a simple, negative Amendment on Report, so that a proviso which was passed in the Committee shall be got rid of.
I would like your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker. Suppose for argument's sake—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends do not like it but they must just listen to it for a moment—that an hon. Member had put an Amendment on the Notice Paper that the proviso to Clause 1 be deleted from the Bill. Would that have been right? It would be a direct negative to a provision inserted in Committee Suppose that it were right; at least the Amendment would be on the Notice Paper and notice would have been given to hon. Members who voted for the proviso in Committee to be here now to oppose its deletion. That is exactly what they are now being deprived of. [Interruption.] It is no use my hon. Friends grumbling in the backwoods like that.
I ask the House to face this as a matter of honour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. If, by a backdoor method, without other hon. Members being notified—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. It is not on the Notice Paper. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is."] It is not—we can get rid of a proviso which was put into the Bill in Committee, it is not, in my opinion, an honest, candid operation. I ask the House, out of its own self-respect, to vote for the Amendment. What the effect of the Amendment will be I cannot say and I do not think that anybody else can say. But what can be said is that it makes a Bill that is already ridiculous still more ridiculous.

Sir Robert Boothby: Without entering into the merits of the Clause, I deprecate the unctuous


tone of this debate. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was entirely unjustified in making what amounted to an attack on the honour of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). Equally, the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) was unjustified in attacking the honour of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. There is no question of honour in this business. We are discussing a Bill about which people feel very strongly on both sides of the House, and hon. Members on both sides are entitled to use Parliamentary tactics to defeat or to get through any Clause that they feel strongly about.
My memory goes back a very long time, I am afraid; and I remember these sort of tactics being employed again and again in the old days. Nobody then held up his hands in holy horror and said that arrangements had been made behind the scenes about which nobody in the Chamber knew anything; or that it was dishonest not to move an Amendment if someone did not wish to do so merely because it was on the Notice Paper. I do not think anybody has done anything dishonest here. I sometimes wish that that master of parliamentary tactics, the present Lord Stansgate, the ex-Mr. Wedgwood Benn of this House, was here to teach the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester, and some others, a thing or two. He would show the hon. and learned Gentleman how to handle these matters, and no nonsense about it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I did not say that what the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) was doing was dishonest.

Sir R. Boothby: The hon. and learned Gentleman talked a lot about dishonesty. So far as we are concerned, there has not been any.

Mr. Ede: I join forces with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby). Certainly, when Lord Stansgate was Mr. Wedgwood Benn many things more exciting than this were done and were enjoyed by both sides, by victims as well as by those who benefited from the manoeuvre.
This is quite a simple issue. Mr. Speaker has proposed the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill". I do not want the

words to remain in the Bill. Therefore, I shall vote "No". I am perfectly entitled to vote "No". As I explained to the House the other night, I was brought up to say "No"; almost a preparation for being an understudy to Mr. Molotov. Then Mr. Speaker will put the Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill". I do not want them to be inserted and, therefore, I shall vote "No" again.
And what will happen about the three words which the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon), in the simplicity of his soul, mentioned, not understanding what will happen to them? They will remain there for the time being. I have no doubt that the House will find a way of preventing itself from doing something that might appear to be rather ridiculous. On these two issues I find no difficulty, in voting "No".

Mr. Elliot: Intolerance has gone to great lengths in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), formerly Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Sir R. Boothby) seem to be perfectly correct in this matter. This is the ordinary cut-and-thrust of Parliamentary debate. We are perfectly willing to stand up to it wherever it takes place.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is in favour of forwarding the Bill on all occasions and taking advantage of all opportunities of doing so. He has taken a Parliamentary opportunity of doing so now. Very well; this goes forward to a Division. I shall vote against him on this occasion and I shall endeavour to retain the proviso. We shall make no complaint whatever if the vote goes against us and we are defeated in the Division Lobby, and if people not in the Chamber are misled when they come into the Division Lobby. That is the rub of the game.
I have opposed the Bill in all its stages. I think that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is completely wrong, but I take no exception to the tactics he has adopted on this occasion. He will vote to delete the proviso and we shall vote to retain it, and the verdict of the House will stand.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 162.

Division No. 248.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Oakshott, H. D.


Arbuthnot, John
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Page, R. G.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Partridge, E.


Barter, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Black, C. W.
Hobson, C. R.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hope, Lord John
Raikes, Sir Victor


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Rawlinson, Peter


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Redmayne, M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Renton, D. L. M.


Campbell, Sir David
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Channon, H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Robertson, Sir David


Chichester-Clarke, R.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cole, Norman
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Sharpies, R. C.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W).


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kershaw, J. A.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kimball, M.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Crouch, R. F.
King, Dr. H. M.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Cunningham, Knox
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfieid)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Dance, J. C. G.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Davidson, Viscountess
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
McAdden, S. J.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Tomney, F.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
McKibbin, A. J.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turner, H. F. L.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fell, A.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Glover, D.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Godber, J. B.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Mawby, R. L.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gough, C. F. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Gower, H. R.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, Hon. R.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Monokton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Woollam, John Victor


Green, A.
Moore, Sir Thomas



Gresham Cooke, R.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth and


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Mr. J. Rodgers.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Heave, Airey



NOES


Albu, A. H.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hannan, W.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hastings, S.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hayman, F. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Herbison, Miss M.


Awbery, S. S.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Deer, G.
Holman, P.


Bann, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Holmes, Horace


Benson, G.
Dodds, N, N.
Holt, A. F.


Beswick, F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Hornby, R. P.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Blackburn, F.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hubbard, T. F.


Blenkinsop, A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Forman, J. C.
Hunter, A. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Brockway, A. F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Irving, S. (Dartford)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gibson, C. W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Greenwood, Anthony
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Chapman, W. D.
Grimond, J.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hale, Leslie
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Clunie, J.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hamilton, W. W.
Keegan, D.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)






Kenyon, C.
Oram, A. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Orbach, M.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Lawson, G. M.
Oswald, T.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Owen, W. J.
Swingler, S. T.


Llewellyn, D, T.
Padley, W. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, John (West Lothlan)


MacColl, J. E.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


McGhee, H. G.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McGovern, J.
Pargiter, G. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


McInnes, J.
Parker, J.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Paton, John
Wade, D. W.


McLeavy, Frank
Peart, T. F.
Warbey, W. N.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Pitman, I. J.
Weitzman, D.


Madden, Martin
Popplewell, E.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Proctor, W. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mason, Roy
Pryde, D. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Mathew, R.
Randall, H. E.
Wigg, George


Maude, Angus
Rankin, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Mayhew, C. P.
Redhead, E. C.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Messer, Sir F.
Reid, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mikardo, Ian
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Mitchison, G. R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewls'm. S.)
Royle, C.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Moyle, A.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mulley, F. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Zilliacus, K.


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)



Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Mr. K. Robinson and Mr. Kirk.


Oliver, G. H.
Steele, T.

Question put, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 158.

Division No. 249.]
AYES
[7.10 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey


Arbuthnot, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, H. W.)
Oakshott, H. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Page, R. G.


Barber, Anthony
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Barter, John
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Partridge, E.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Black, C. W.
Hobson, G. R.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hope, Lord John
Raikes, Sir Victor


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Rawlinson, Peter


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Redmayne, M.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Campbell, Sir David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Channon, H.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Robertson, Sir David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Sharples, R. C.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kershaw, J. A.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kimball, M.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Crouch, R. F.
King, Dr. H. M.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Knox
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Dance, J. C. G.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Deedes, W. F.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. McA.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Doughty, C. J. A.
McAdden, S. J.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Drayson, G. B.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
McKibbin, A. J.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turner, H. F. L.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fell, A.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Glover, D.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Godber, J. B.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Mawby, R. L.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Gower, H. R.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wood, Hon. R.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Woollam, John Victor


Green, A.
Moore, Sir Thomas



Gresham Cooke, R.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Sir H. Lucas-Tooth and


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Mr. J. Rodgers.




NOES


Albu, A. H.
Hayman, F. H.
Owen, W. J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Padley, W. E.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Herbison, Miss M.
Paget, R. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Holman, P.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Holmes, Horace
Pargiter, G. A.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Holt, A. F.
Parker, J.


Benson, G.
Hornby, R. P.
Paton, John


Beswick, F.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Peart, T. F.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hubbard, T. F.
Pitman, I. J.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Popplewell, E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Randall, H. E.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John


Bowles, F. G.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Redhead, E. C.


Brockway, A. F.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Reid, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Royle, C.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Chapman, W. D.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Clunie, J.
Keegan, D.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Kenyon, C.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Steele, T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, G. M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swingler, S. T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacColl, J. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McGovern, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Deer, G.
McInnes, J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Dodds, N. N.
McLeavy, Frank
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wade, D. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Maddan, Martin
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mason, Roy
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Mathew, R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Forman, J. C.
Maude, Angus
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Messer, Sir F.
Wigg, George


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mikardo, Ian
Wilkins, W. A.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, C. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, A.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mulley, F. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grimond, J.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hale, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Zilliacus, K.


Hamilton, W. W.
Oliver, G. H.



Hannan, W.
Oram, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orbach, M.
Mr. K. Robinson and Mr. Kirk


Hastings, S.
Oswald, T.

Mr. John Maclay: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, after "1933", to insert:
or of section fifty-seven of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937".
If it is agreeable to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, I suggest that we also discuss the three other Amendments standing in my name, in lines 15, 16 and 19. If we can discuss the four Amendments together it will save a lot of time, because they are purely drafting Amendments attempting to tidy up the drafting of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Maclay: Whatever may be one's view upon the merits of the Bill as a whole—and mine are quite definite—it

would be a pity if the House were to produce legislation which was somewhat obscure when it could be tidied up by certain fairly simple drafting Amendments. The effect of my proposal is simply to transfer what is contained in subsection (3) to subsection (2), making that subsection read:
Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of Section fifty-three of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, or of Section fifty-seven of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937. …
I am advised, according to the best advice that I have been able to obtain, that this is a much clearer way of expressing something which is rather obscure in the Bill as it stands.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not desire to detain the House on this matter. The


promoters are perfectly content to accept the advice of the Scottish Office as to whether what is common ground is better enacted in the Bill as it stands or in the way now proposed by the right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay).
In justice, I ought to say that the way in which it now appears in the Bill was the responsibility of those Who moved it during the Committee stage, when I was just as accommodating as I am now and accepted the Amendment, only to be met by the hon. and learned Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) with a charge which, I think, I should take this opportunity to refute, because it was not a charge against me but against people who are not here to defend themselves. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought that the Bill was badly drafted. In that he is entitled to his view, and I shall not seek to debate it with him. But any ill-drafting there may have been is entirely my responsibility and not that of the National Campaign for the Abolition of the Death Penalty, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said.

Mr. Simon: I never mentioned any such party at all. The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken. In fact, I referred to him in person and said that the present Bill was so badly drafted that it was an affront to the House. I never mentioned the National Campaign.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman, while he is preferring charges against people of affronting the House, ought to refresh his memory—

Mr. Simon: I have.

Mr. Silverman: If he has, he ought to teach himself to read, because he quite clearly said that this was a Bill that had been on the stocks for many years and in the hands of some committee or other—it may have been some other Committee, I do not know. But it was not, and the responsibility was entirely my own.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): The Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) is an improvement, in that it tidies up the Bill and puts into one subsection what was before in two subsections. I hope that the House will agree to accept this Amendment and the next two Amendments when they are moved.
My right hon. Friend referred to a later Amendment in page 19, to leave out subsection (3). When we come to that, perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, may permit a Motion to be moved, but meantime the matter does not arise.

Mr. Elliot: I am opposed to the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay). I reject the advice given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, and I propose to divide the House upon this matter. This whole Bill interferes with the law of murder in Scotland in a way which is totally unwarranted and unjustified and on Second Reading was defeated by a majority of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies.
Accordingly, I say without hesitation that bad as is the Bill for England, it is a worse Bill for Scotland. We have been instructed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that the Bill is fundamentally obscure in one of the most important aspects which could possibly arise. As we have received advice of that kind, I do not propose to give support to any attempt to alter the Bill.
I do not object to the tactics of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). He was fully entitled to adopt them. What he said about my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Simon) not being able to read I shall leave for my hon. and learned Friend to rebut at the due time. I do not think that this Amendment is a good idea and I shall divide the House.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Maclay) has already addressed the House. Does he wish to ask leave to speak again?

Mr. Maclay: With the leave of the House, may I reply to something which has been said about this Amendment? First, may I comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)? It was not the Scottish Office speaking, but I should like to make that clear. Regarding what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), I wish there to be no doubt about what is happening. I have no dispute with him, as he knows, about the principles of the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know where this discussion is getting. As I read the Amendment, it has something to do with Section 57 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937. We seem to be talking about subjects which I cannot connect in my mind with that particular Statute.

Mr. Maclay: I was about to say again, Sir, what is the effect of my Amendment, because it is just possible that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove has misunderstood it. The Amendment alters nothing in the Bill. It simply alters the drafting. I wish to make certain that my right hon. Friend completely understands, and that he is under no illusion that I am in any way proposing an alteration in the law of Scotland by this Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There is but one short observation that I wish to make. It is that the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), in deciding to divide the House, in order to express the point of view of Scotland, has himself created a precedent. It is the first time the Lord High Commissioner for the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has had a different opinion from that of the Church Assembly.

Mr. Elliot: rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the House will not be led away into these side issues. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make a personal rejoinder to what has been said, he is at liberty to do so, but it is my duty to draw the attention of the House back to the subject of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937.

Mr. Elliot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that there is a group of Amendments here which we are discussing together. I will reserve my remarks for one of the later Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill." Those of that opinion say "Aye"; to the contrary "No."

Hon Members: Aye.

Mr. Elliot: No.

Mr. Speaker: I think the "Ayes" have it.

Mr. Elliot: No.

Mr. Speaker: I think the "Ayes" have it—did the right hon. Gentleman say "No"?

Mr. Elliot: I said "No", Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Clear the Lobbies.
The Question is, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill". As many as are of that opinion say "Aye"; to the contrary "No". The "Ayes" have it.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In line 15, leave out "prohibits" and insert "prohibit".
In line 16 leave out "requires" and insert "require".—[Mr. Maclay.]

Mr. Elliot: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I have collected the voices. Perhaps I was too quick. The next Amendment, in line 19, to insert a new subsection (3) is out of order as being beyond the scope of the Bill.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Nairn: I beg to move, as a manuscript Amendment—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept any manuscript Amendments at this stage of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: In line 19, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Maclay.]

Mr. Elliot: Perhaps this may be an appropriate moment to reply to the short interjection made in ignorance of the facts by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). He said that this was the only occasion on which the Lord High Commissioner had differed from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. These things have happened before, but this was not an occasion on which the Lord High Commissioner's views differed—

Mr. Charles A. Howell: On a point of order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, to which Clause the right hon. Member is speaking?

Mr. Speaker: An Amendment has been moved to leave out subsection (3) of Clause 1. I was waiting to see how the


right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) connected what he had to say with that Clause.

Mr. Elliot: Now that that point of order has been successfully cleared up, I will continue with the point which I was making.
It begins with the application of this Clause to Scotland. It was suggested, as support for the course being taken, that it had the support of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire had paid attention to the proceedings of that august court he would have seen that the General Assembly was dealing only with this point: whether, if the House of Commons accepted this Amendment, there should or should not be a radical revision of our whole system of prisons and prison reform. There is, therefore, no difference whatever between the views which I am advancing and the views held by the high and august court of which I had the honour to be Commissioner on the previous occasion.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member wishes to speak about the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, I cannot see how that can possibly be included in the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Would you be good enough to tell us, Mr. Speaker, how much more difficult it would be for my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to do that than it was for the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) to do it?

Mr. Speaker: I waited to hear what the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove was going to say. I thought he was about to introduce something about the Children and Young Persons Act, but when he moved to the subject of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland I realised that that did not quite fit into the Bill. I thought the hon. Member for South Ayrshire was rising to say something on the same lines, and that is why I checked him.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION.)

Mr. Simon: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, at the end to insert:
(2) Any reference in this Act to an enactment shall be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended by or under any other enactment.
This is an obscure formula, but it is designed to improve the drafting of the Bill. In supporting an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) in Committee, which was accepted by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I had occasion to draw attention to the fact that it was necessary to make this drafting Amendment. In spite of the fact that he accepted it, the hon. Member today referred, I think extremely ungraciously, to what I had said and, I am bound to say, misrepresented me. When I challenged him with a copy of HANSARD, which I now have here, he, typically, tried to brazen it out. I have read through what I said on that occasion, and it is perfectly clear that I was holding him and him alone responsible for the drafting of the Bill.
This Amendment seeks to take account of the fact that Section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and Section 57 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland), Act, 1937, which are referred to in Clause 1 and which prohibit the passing of a sentence of death against a person under 18, have been amended by Section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, and also by Section 17 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland), Act, 1949. I apprehend that the Amendments which we have just passed do not meet that point and, subject to the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate or any other Law Officer, it seems to me that this Amendment is necessary.

Mr. S. Silverman: I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, without argument, that the point covered by the Amendment is no longer necessary, having regard to the Amendments which the House has just accepted.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is not yet before the House. The Amendment needs a seconder.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: I make that submission to you, Mr. Speaker, and there is no need for anyone to offer any further observations.

The Lord Advocate: I am fully aware that an argument can be advanced by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that these words are not necessary, but I think that I can advance a stronger argument that they are necessary. In any case, it is very much better to have them there, and I suggest that the House should accept them.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Title

Amendment made: In line 1, leave out from "Provide" to second "for" in line 3.—[Mr. S. Silverman.]

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Before we pass to Third Reading, may I submit to you that I should be allowed to move to recommit the Bill in respect of the three words left in Clause 1 (1)? The effect of what the House has done is to leave the words "Provided that this" in the Bill, followed by nothing whatever. In my submission, it is obvious that the Committee should have the opportunity of deleting these words.

Mr. Speaker: It is not necessary to recommit the Bill for this purpose. We are now proceeding to the Third Reading, and the practice of the House allows a purely verbal Amendment to be made on Third Reading. I will be prepared to hold that this is a purely verbal Amendment and one not altering the sense of the Bill in any way. If, when he rises to move the Third Reading, the hon. Member would first move a verbal Amendment to delete those words and that Motion is duly seconded and is agreed to by the House, it will be taken account of.

Mr. Simon: On a point of order. The acceptance of a manuscript Amendment at this stage, Mr. Speaker, is, I understand, a matter for your discretion. It is not a matter of right and, before you rule on it, I would ask you to take account of certain considerations. The proviso that appears in the printed copy of the Bill in page 1, line 10, was put in by a solemn vote of the House after the matter had appeared on the Notice Paper quite

clearly, so that it would be quite clearly understood as a matter of principle. It was debated at length by the Committee, and by a majority the Committee moved to insert the proviso. Today, we have had, by a parliamentary manceuvre—a perfectly legitimate parliamentary manceuvre so far as what appears in public is concerned—

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is an offensive—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member who was addressing the House was purporting to speak on a point of order; but he is introducing a lot of considerations with which I am powerless to deal. I have only to make up my mind whether or not I shall allow this Amendment to be made at this late stage. Different opinions may be held as to what has transpired, with which I have nothing to do. My only interest in the Bill is that it should look intelligible when it leaves this House. From that point of view, I would myself be prepared to allow this verbal Amendment to be made. It does not in any way alter the sense of what the House has done; it merely removes a verbal blemish. For that reason, I propose to allow it.

Mr. Simon: I am sure that before you make up your mind to accept it, Mr. Speaker, you will hear me out. I do not propose to detain the House for very long. I had pointed out that this proviso was put in by solemn vote of the Committee when the Committee was fully apprised of what it was about. What has happened today quite clearly took place with the House of Commons not put on its guard as to the result of the transaction. Of that there can be no question at all—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that at this stage these considerations have anything to do with the matter. I can only allow the Amendment. It is for the House to decide whether it is passed or not. That is all that I am doing. Otherwise, I have to send the Bill to another place with the words "Provided that this" in it. Quite frankly, that does not seem to me to mean very much. If there are objections to removing the words, the hon. and learned Member can make his speech on the objections, but not on a point of order. I have decided,


and I think rightly, that it is better to have these words taken out as they now mean nothing, and if the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) moves to delete them on Third Reading I will accept his Motion.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Simon: Before coming to your conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should be grateful if you would bear this further matter in mind. It is, of course, something for your discretion, and I am asking you, after hearing what I have to say, to exercise your discretion against a manuscript Amendment of this sort at this stage. Surely it would be better to let the Bill go to another place where attention would be drawn, by the curious form in which the Bill goes to the other place, to what has transpired, rather than to allow the manoeuvres that we have seen today to be consummated.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot go into the question of what has happened today. I am asked only whether I will consent, on Third Reading, to a purely verbal Amendment to leave out words that have no meaning, and I think that I have done my duty to the House in coming to the conclusion that I should allow the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member is bringing in a number of outside considerations.

Mr. Silverman: I refrain from making any comment on anything that has been said, Mr. Speaker, and, with your leave, I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, that the words "Provided that this" be deleted.

Mr. John Paton: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

Captain Charles Waterhouse: On a point of order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, what is before the House at the moment? The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has not moved, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. Speaker: We have reached the stage of the Third Reading, but at that stage a formal verbal Amendment can be made, and then we will proceed to move the Third Reading.

Sir Robert Grimston: I think that it is permissible to make a few remarks on the Motion that these words be left out.
I do not propose to go into any question of undertakings which were come to between parties outside the House—

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member had better not.

Sir R. Grimston: I do not propose to do that, because I do not think they are relevant, but I have to say that certain undertakings have not been carried out. What will appear to the country, of course, is that a provision which was put in during the Committee stage to retain the death penalty in certain circumstances has been removed at another stage. I think that it should be known that amongst some people there was an undertaking that that would not be done. I do not think that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was a party to it, but, through a certain manoeuvre in the House of Commons of which he took instant advantage, being a very experienced Parliamentarian,—

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been accused of taking advantage of a manoeuvre, in phraseology and against a background that imports an implication that either I gave an undertaking or was party to an undertaking and then did not honour it. That charge ought not to be made unless it can be proved, and if it cannot be proved it ought to be withdrawn. The only undertakings that have not been honoured were not undertakings given by me or on my side in this argument.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot see what this has got to do with whether the words be removed or not. It is another question, is it not?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think I shall be speaking of matters within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, when I say that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne made the charge against me that I had been guilty of a breach of an undertaking with him.

Mr. Silverman: Yes.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Therefore, it is not really open to him to say that these sort of charges ought not to be thrown about.

Mr. Silverman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that these personal matters will be amicably resolved. They really are not before me at the moment.

Mr. Simon: On a point of order. Further to what was said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse), at what stage is this Amendment moved? So far as I understood, the Third Reading of the Bill has not been moved. With respect, should it not be moved before any Amendment be moved?

Mr. Speaker: I asked when the Third Reading was to be, and the answer was "Now". We have reached that stage, though the Motion has not formally been made.
Amendment agreed to.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not propose to delay the House for more than a very few minutes. This is the third occasion on which the House has been invited to deal with the matter in principle. There was originally the Motion, which had an Amendment moved to it, and the House then adopted the Motion in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. Then there was the Second Reading of the Bill, when the House decided, by a significant majority, in favour of the principle of the abolition of the death penalty for murder in this country. Although I apprehend that it would be perfectly in order for any hon. or right hon. Member who wished again to debate that question of principle, I do not propose to do so; indeed, I should find it extremely difficult to add anything to the arguments which have been advanced by others than myself on each of the two previous occasions, and there would seem to be no necessity to do so.
In effect, this is almost, if it were constitutionally possible, a Fourth Reading, because the First Reading was unopposed on the first occasion in the autumn of last year. It does really seem that it would be superfluous and ineffective at this stage, though it might be in order to do so, to debate the principle of the Bill once again.
What I wish to do is to invite the Government to consider what their attitude will be, on the assumption which I

invite them to make for this purpose, that the House does in a little while give the Bill a Third Reading. It has been common ground throughout, as it was common ground in 1948, that this is not a matter which is best dealt with on the usual lines of a party division of opinion or a party vote. The division of opinion on the principle cuts across, at any rate to some extent, party lines, and in the Division Lobbies at every stage there have been Members of Parliament, both Aye and No, belonging to each of the two main parties. That is a question of simple fact, and any hon. Gentleman who doubts it might go to the Library and look at the Division lists, where he will find the statement to be really beyond reasonable controversy.
That has been so because the question of principle is one very deeply felt and deeply argued; indeed, there are gradations of opinion between those who are in favour of total abolition and those who are in favour of total retention. Even in the Divisions on the various Amendments, the absence of any party character to the controversy and to the Divisions has been the same; even the lines have crossed a little as between abolitionists and retentionists generally, some retentionists voting for some abolitionists' proposals and some abolitionists voting for some retentionists' proposals.
The whole matter has been accepted in the House of Commons, as I believe it has been generally accepted, as being a matter which stands outside the normal party controversy. It was dealt with at every stage in the House of Commons on that basis. Does the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. E. Partridge) wish to intervene?

Mr. E. Partridge: If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is prepared to give way, I wish to remind him of this. He says that it is accepted throughout the country. If he listened to one of his own party on the wireless in the "Women's Hour" last week, he would have heard her state emphatically that this question was a party line; and nobody contradicted her.

Mr. Silverman: In spite of that, I do think that it is not a party line, and never has been a party line; and I hope that, in spite of the hon. Member's reference, it will never become a party line.
That being so, there would not be much point in the Government leaving a decision to a free vote of the House of Commons if, once the decision of the House is known and ascertained on a free vote, the Government does not then accept the decision. If there were to be a situation in which the Government left a decision to a free vote of the House of Commons and then repudiated the decision of the House, that indeed would make nonsense of all our procedure; and I am sure that the Government have never had any intention of doing that. They made it perfectly clear on Second Reading that they had no such intention.
I will recall the words again in order to make sure that I am not doing any injustice to anybody on the point.
The Lord Privy Seal said on 16th February:
I would say at once, in answer to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), himself an ex-Home Secretary, that when we have a free vote, we naturally expect …
"We" being the Government—
to base our actions, if perhaps after necessary further deliberations, on the decision of the House. The decision for hon. Members is therefore very serious."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 2635.]

Mr. Simon: Was the Lord Privy Seal there referring to the original Motion which related to leave to bring in the Bill, or was the statement made on the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. Silverman: It was made on 16th February. I am not sure whether that was the date of the Motion or of the Second Reading. I think it was the Motion and not the Second Reading, but the hon. and learned Member will not, I am sure, seek to make any point of that.

Mr. Simon: It makes all the difference.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Member says that it makes all the difference. I would be extremely surprised and a little shocked if the Government said it made all the difference.

Mr. Simon: rose—

Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Member must not prolong my speech. I have given way once and have dealt with the point he made. He is perfectly entitled not to agree with me and later to tell the House what he thinks is the right

view, but it would not be to his advantage or to the advantage of the House to try to debate this by interventions and answers. I repeat that I would be surprised and considerably shocked if the Government thought that statement made on the Motion did apply to the Bill. I will tell the hon. and learned Member and the House why. As soon as the Motion had been passed, the hon. and learned Member will remember, as we all remember, there were certain discussions, some behind the scenes. There are sometimes discussions behind the scenes. Some of them were on the Floor of the House. In those discussions, the question at issue was how the Government could best give effect to the undertaking that the Lord Privy Seal had given on their behalf on the occasion to which I have referred.
There were two views about that. One view—many people thought it was the better view—was that the Government could only give adequae effect to the undertaking they had given on the Motion by themselves then and there introducing a suitable Bill to give legislative effect to the principle which the House of Commons, on a free vote, had decided. The Government thought otherwise. The Government thought that effect would still be given to it if it were left to a Private Member to pilot a Bill through Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading, and if the Government provided ample time for that to be done.
In the end, the Government—I think it fair to say, with my own express approval—decided on that course. What I am saying to the Government today is that every possible examination of the Bill, on a free vote of the House, has now been made. The position is a little different from what it was in 1948. In 1948, hon. Members will remember, the procedure was quite different. Then the understanding was that no attempt would be made to put this thing through in Committee stage on the Criminal Justice Bill but that time would be found on the Report stage. Of course, the effect was that in 1948 there was no detailed examination of the proposal at all. All that the House of Commons was able to do on the Report stage was to deal with the Clause as it stood. There was no possibility of discussing Amendments or exceptions, or qualifications of any


kind, and the result was that in another place there was an attempt to suggest that alterations should be made. It came back to the House of Commons, some alterations were made, and then again the thing was rejected.
What I am saying to the Government on this occasion is that the position is quite different. Now we have already had two full-dress debates about the principle, in addition to the uncontested First Reading. There was the Motion on 16th February and there was the Second Reading. I want to acknowledge with gratitude to the Government that they have fully carried out their pledge to provide sufficient time for proper examination of the Bill. I think it fair also to say that the Committee and the House have taken full advantage of that time. Every possible Amendment to the Bill which one could imagine could commend itself to anyone has been tabled. The Bill has been examined Clause by Clause, line by line and almost comma by comma.
I acknowledge that in drafting it is probably a better Bill now than it was when it was first presented. I acknowledge also that although in one moment of what I would call aberration the Committee did make a blemish on the Bill, but the House has handsomely made amends for that this afternoon. Therefore, I say the time has been extremely well used. What I am pressing on the notice of the Government is that no one will be able to say here or elsewhere that what the House does tonight is hasty or ill-considered. We have not been particularly fortunate in events outside. The atmosphere has not been altered in favour of abolitionists by some recent events, to which it would be out of order to refer specifically or in any detail.
No one can say, therefore, that what the House does tonight is not its fully considered and reconsidered opinion. Right or wrong, this is what the House of Commons thinks. I am a good enough, perhaps an old enough, parliamentarian not to despise that. I say that what our constituents are entitled to at our hands is the honest exercise of our judgment. That is what they elect us for. If in the end they lose confidence in us, if in the end they think we have done the wrong thing, they have their remedy

periodically. That is true of this House of Parliament but not true of another place.
I hope it is not an impertinence on my part, I do not intend it as an impertinence, but I should like to pay my personal tribute to a number of hon. Members, who do not agree with me in politics on any other single subject, for the courage and sincerity with which they have stuck to their opinions, sometimes under pressure. Whatever their constituents may think, I believe that in the end they will not lose by their demonstration of courage and sincerity. If they do, the reflection will not be on them but upon constituents so short-sighted as to prefer a Member of Parliament to act otherwise than in accordance with his conscientious opinion.
At the end of the day, it will not be possible to argue that there is anything hasty, anything ill-considered, in what the House of Commons does. Whatever it does, it will have done it with its eyes open and determined to do it because it believes it to be right. The Government, therefore, will be in possession of the fully considered, reconsidered, reviewed and considered again opinion of the House of Commons. I say to them with respect that it becomes their duty now—or will become their duty on the assumption that the House of Commons agrees to the Third Reading—and the only way in which they can now implement the undertaking they gave on 16th February last, to take the Bill over and make themselves responsible for it in all its future stages as a Government Measure.
I think that would be right in principle and there are certain obvious practical advantages if they do so. I hope it is not out of order to refer to what could possibly be the future history of the Bill. Of course, if another place is content to reach the same conclusion as the House of Commons, we shall all be delighted. Whatever may be thought in some quarters, I am perfectly certain that 12 months from now no one will remember there was any controversy about it, or understand what the controversy was about if he does. If in another place the Bill is rejected, I do not think that will alter the opinion either way of any Member of the House of Commons; nor do I think that the present rather anomalous but obviously practical solution in


practice could be in that event changed. Therefore, it seems to me that the utmost that another place could do, if it wished to do it, would be to alter—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I do not think that on Third Reading the hon. Member is in order in discussing what another place may do.

Mr. Silverman: If I am not in order, I shall not pursue it, but although I cannot deal with that, with what we ought to do if another place does this, that or the other, what I am seeking to do is to commend to the Government the practical wisdom of taking to themselves the responsibility for the future course of the Bill, having regard to the future possible alternatives. I hope that that is in order. If not, I shall not pursue it. In any event, I say that the most that would happen would be the possibility of deferring a formal amendment of the Statute Book by one—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think this is in order.

Mr. Silverman: For all these reasons which it is in order for me to deploy, and for those reasons which, apparently, it is in order for me only to hint at, I say to the Government that the practical wisdom of the situation now is the same as the answer to the question, What is their proper duty under the undertaking which they gave?
If the House adopts the Third Reading tonight, the Government will have had what they asked for. They asked the House of Commons first to consider the principle on a free vote. They asked the House of Commons then to consider the Bill in detail, at every stage on a free vote. They asked the House of Commons to consider it, again on a free vote, on further consideration. They asked, or are now asking, the House of Commons to deal with it in principle, again on a free vote, on Third Reading. If the Third Reading is passed, the Government will have had from the House of Commons what they invited the House to give. I should think that, in those circumstances, the proper course for the Government to take would be to adopt it and pursue it and make themselves responsible for its future history.
If the Government take another view, I suppose it is reasonable to say that

we regard this now as an inevitable amendment of the law. We shall go on, whatever happens here or elsewhere, seeking to give effect to what has now been amply demonstrated to be the considered opinion of the House of Commons both in 1948 and now, eight years later, in 1956.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: I beg to second the Motion.
It must be a matter of some emotion for the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to have reached what is the ultimate stage in this House in the passage of his Bill. I do not think that it would seem inappropriate for me, who agree with him upon this matter, if on no other, to offer him my congratulations upon bringing to this successful conclusion so important a Measure.
I must add to what he said about the Treasury Bench, in thanking my right hon. Friends for honouring their pledge to give the Bill time in the House, time for its Second Reading, time for its consideration in Committee and upon Report, in its proper place with other legislation. It is certainly true that I and all my hon. Friends on this side who have supported the abolitionist case have not, during these months, been subjected to any pressure whatever from our Front Bench or the Whips except that of honourable, open argument. In that sense it has been a happy passage.
I think that all of us have been conscious, whichever view we take, that none of us could be absolutely certain that he was right. That applies to both sides. We are not dealing with certainties. We are dealing with probabilities, very fine gradation of emotion, temperament, and of moral judgments. It is not capable of proof that the abolitionists are right. We base our case upon the argument that capital punishment is unnecessary and morally wrong, and the retentionists say the opposite, that it is necessary and morally right. None of us will ever know who was correct in those two conflicting judgments.
Some abolitionists, I suppose, though I am not one of them, would not reintroduce capital punishment even if murders were to increase quite suddenly to an unprecedented level and remain at that


level. I would add that that has never happened in the history of abolition, a history extending now over more than half a century in nearly 40 countries of the world. I daresay that there are some retentionists among us, but not many, who are incapable in any circumstances of admitting that they were wrong. Even if the murder rate—I take an impossible example—were to sink after abolition to one a year, still there would be some retentionists who would say that the death sentence was justified if only because it might have prevented that one.
I believe that most of us would be prepared to admit that the divisions there have been on this issue in the country and in this House and, if we are to believe reports in the newspapers, in the Cabinet itself, simply reflect the divisions in our own minds. But because there is that uncertainty I do not think it is any excuse for us to say we should do nothing about it. On the contrary, it has always been right that this House should constantly re-examine the assumption that the right penalty for illegal killing is legal killing.
Public opinion outside, and opinion in this House, has changed slightly during the passage of the Bill. The admission has been increasingly made that there is an element of retribution in the capital sentence. That was an argument from which the Home Secretary specifically dissociated himself on Second Reading of the Bill. But I fear that many people outside and some in this House have come to admit that they consider that it is right that murder should be punished by the death of the criminal, following the Old Testament argument of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
There have been others who have been very naturally swayed by the movement of opinion in their own constituencies. I have myself. I said in the debate upon the general Motion which preceded the introduction of the Bill, that in speaking and voting as I did I was very conscious that the majority of my constituents would speak and vote in the opposite sense did they but have the chance to do so. And that statement, which was intended to bring to the attention of the House the fact that I was disagreeing with the majority of those who sent me here, was taken by them, very naturally, though I regret it, as a deliberate affront. It was

novel doctrine to them that a Member of Parliament can vote and speak here in a sense which the people who sent him would disapprove.
I think it would be a great pity if we were to allow this to be established as a precedent, that when a free vote is given on a moral issue in the House the duty of the Member of Parliament is to do his best to discover what the majority opinion in his constituency is and vote in that way, whether he agrees with it or not. It would be a tragedy if Whips were to be removed at Westminster only to be reimposed in the constituency itself. The result of that would be that Members would come to dread the privilege of a free vote, instead of welcoming it. In this particular case, it is even less justifiable. A Member of Parliament should regard public opinion in his constituency as an element of great importance, but it should not be the element which over-rides all others.
In whatever proportions public opinion may now be divided as between the retentionist and the abolitionist case, of one thing there is no doubt at all—that public opinion is moving, and has been moving over the last 20 or more years, in the direction of accepting the abolitionist case. It may be, as the latest Gallup Poll indicates, that about 60 per cent, of our people are in favour of retention and 40 per cent. in favour of abolition. What is to happen, if as seems very likely, in a few years' time those proportions are reversed?
What is the duty of a Member of Parliament who is guided solely by the views in his constituency when, instead of 60 per cent. in favour of retention and 40 per cent. in favour of abolition, there are 40 per cent. in favour of retention and 60 per cent. in favour of abolition? Is he then, when he judges that 49 per cent. have changed to 51 per cent., to change his vote without changing his mind? Is he to change both his vote and his mind, or is he to change neither? What is he to do? He will then come to the conclusion, if he had not come to it sooner, that the only possible line he can take is to make up his mind on these moral issues as best he can.
I believe that public opinion is swayed by two things. The first I have already mentioned. It is the growing sense of retribution which I believe—and this is


a purely personal opinion—to be a very immoral idea, based on Old Testament teaching and at variance with the New Testament. And if it is not wrong or in bad taste to say this, I have regretted all the way through this controversy that there has been no authoritative guidance from the Church.
I have asked the church people in my own constituency what they thought, and it so happens that all whom I have asked have backed up my attitude; but I have not heard, during the course of these debates, any guidance given by any one of the leading churchmen of the land. That is one of the reasons why I welcome the fact that we have our second Chamber, in which our clergy are represented, and I hope that during the next few weeks that guidance which I have so missed up to now will be forthcoming.
The second factor which has governed public opinion has been the element of fear. Here, perhaps, I cannot entirely excuse those who have opposed me. They have consistently frightened the public. They have allowed it to be believed that the passage of the Bill would be followed by a wave of crime such as the public has never endured before. It is very natural that people should have taken notice of that. Already, far too much attention has been concentrated upon murder. It is, indeed, the glamour of murder which we will disperse by this Bill. A great many people have been persuaded by speeches made in this place and outside to fear the consequences of this Bill to an infinitely greater degree than is justified.
I wonder how many people in the country, in the course of their whole lives, will ever come directly into contact with murder or ever have any close friends or relatives into whose lives murder has entered. Very few indeed—about one-fiftieth of the number into whose lives comes death by accident on the roads or in the home. I believe that it is our duty to draw attention to the fact that we are dealing with one of the rarest of all crimes, and that nothing will stop murder, even murder of the most horrible type. Murder will go on as long as man lives, and nothing, not even torture, will stop all those who are determined to commit it.
I fear very much that before we have finished with the Bill a particularly

violent murder will arouse the horror of the whole country and may so split the nation and the House that we will never be able to complete its passage. I hope that that will not be so, for surely coincidence should play no part in our deliberations here. It is matter of complete irrelevance whether a particularly horrible murder takes place this week or this month, for what we are considering is the whole history of criminology, the experience of dozens of other countries, and our own future. We should think of those basic principles and not be swayed by purely accidental instances of the crime we are discussing.
I end by referring, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne did not, to the principle of the Bill, and I want shortly to explain to the House why it is that I favour it. As I look back upon English history I see that there has been a continual relaxation of penalties and a corresponding diminution of the crimes for which they were applied. We once tortured people in this country, we burned them, then we hanged, drew and quartered them. Then we had public executions. Then we had hanging for many hundreds of minor offences. One by one, over the course of about three hundred years, we managed to get rid of these excessive penalties, and on every single occasion it was prophesied that there would be a wave of that particular crime as a result of the abolition. In every single case, those who made that prophecy were wrong.
I have asked myself whether, if I had been speaking in this place a hundred years ago and it had come before us, as it did, that the penalty of death should be removed from about 200 petty offences, I should have voted for it or not. I can say to the House that I am sure I would have had great hesitation in doing so. And why? Because there was absolutely no proof at that time that the removal of the death sentence would not result in exactly what the judges, the police, and the Government of the day were prophesying, that there would be a wave of crime which would make it unsafe for any man or woman to stir out of their homes.
Today, we have the proof. That is what has made me an abolitionist. Temperamentally, I was opposed to violent punishment, and now, in addition, we have


the experience of other countries in the case of murder, and of this country in the case of lesser crimes, to prove that abolition does not lead to the violent outbreaks which had been foretold.
I need scarcely remind the House that some of us were saying in the earlier stages of this debate that abolition would be followed by an immediate increase in crimes of violence. It is now three or four months since it became virtually certain that no man would ever be hanged again in England for the crime of murder, and the figures which were published yesterday in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in answer to a Written Question, show that far from there having been an increase in murders since that decision was taken, the number of murders is less than the average in the same three months period in previous years. I do not draw any wide conclusions from this. I remember well my right hon. and gallant Friend saying that it would be 10 years before we could decide whether this Measure was proved right or wrong on the basis of pure statistics. But at least I think we are entitled to say that those who feared an immediate increase in crime have been proved wrong.
I do not think that there is a single hon. Member here who would have introduced capital punishment, did we not have it in this country. I do not think that there is anybody who would not think it a gain if we made this experiment, as we are now about to make it, and if, as a result, there was no increase in the murder rate over a long period of years. I do not think there is anybody who would not think it a gain if the confidence we have as Christians in the improvability of human character is justified, and it is proved once more that the violence in which we have indulged in our penal code is not necessary to curb violence even among the most criminal of our classes.

8.33 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): It now falls to me to advise the House what course should be taken on the Third Reading of this Bill. As the House will recollect, the attitude of the Government has been made abundantly clear, both in the debate on 16th February by my right

hon. Friend the Leader of the House and by myself during the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. I shall have to say many things now which I have said before, but I only do so because I have great responsibility in the office I hold today. I am anxious to underline certain points which I have made before, because they are essential in a matter which is of such vital importance to this country.
During the course of the Second Reading debate, I said that I was of the opinion that capital punishment was a unique deterrent, and I still remain of that opinion. I do not think we should deprive the country of the protection which that affords. I shall not now make any conjecture, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson), about the wave of crime and so forth, but we cannot ignore the high level of crimes of violence at this moment, which I am sorry to say have been increasing. While I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not come here as delegates, I must at the same time point out that we cannot ignore the fact that public opinion is by no means convinced that abolition at this moment is right.
I have listened with close attention—I think the House will agree with me—during most of the debates that we have had on the Bill, but I have not yet heard anything which has made me want in the least to change the opinions that I expressed during the debates to which I referred just now.
So many of the arguments for abolition which have been put forward in this House and outside it have been based on emotion and, I regret to say, not always accurate references to particular cases. I want, in all seriousness, to ask the House during the Third Reading debate to face the facts as they are and to realise some of the consequences of passing the Bill into law.
The practice at the Home Office—I speak from my own experience, and I am certain that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will confirm what I say—is to look with the greatest possible care for any extenuating circumstances which may justify the Home Secretary in recommending a reprieve. That is, of course, the attitude of the Home Secretary as well, and I speak from my


own experience, and I am certain that the right hon. Member for South Shields would say the same from his own experience. The few murderers who are at present executed are, therefore, those in whose case the search for extenuating circumstances has failed.

Mr. Paget: Mrs. Thompson? Mrs. Ellis? Bentley?

Major Lloyd-George: I repeat both my first statement and my second statement. The greatest care is exercised to find extenuating circumstances. I speak from my own experience. If no extenuating circumstances are found, the law takes its course. That is what I said, and that is what I meant.
If the Bill is passed into law, what is to happen to those for whom no extenuating circumstances are found? I have said this before during the course of our debates, and I am compelled to repeat it. I do not think most abolitionists have yet faced up to the question of what is to happen to those people. I sometimes feel that it is a case of "out of sight, out of mind"; so long as the murderers are not executed, they think they have done their duty.
Some of these murderers, as I have said before, will be in prison for life. We have life imprisonment today, but that is not the same thing. Some of these people will be really in prison for life, a very different thing. Practically every speaker in favour of abolition has based his arguments on the alternative to the death penalty on the average period of detention of reprieved murders today. This is wholly misleading as a guide to what it will be necessary to do with murderers of the kind who are not now reprieved.
Murderers who are reprieved nowadays are released as a rule after an average of nine years. This is a relatively short period, and it is short precisely because it has been possible to find extenuating circumstances. Sometimes the extenuating circumstances are so strong that the period is even less than nine years.
But it does not follow that because a murderer who, for example, up to the date of his crime had led a perfectly blameless life and had a good character and had killed only in circumstances of great stress, or who is so immature that he ought not to be held fully responsible,

is required to serve only about nine years, murderers whose crimes have no extenuating circumstances and who are, perhaps, dangerous killers, can be released after anything like nine years. They may well have to be kept for long periods, some for very long periods, in conditions of close security. Such a punishment for a young, healthy, active man would in some cases be about the most cruel thing that society could inflict.
We cannot ignore another problem that would follow abolition. I want the House to take note of this point. There will be constant pressure on a Home Secretary, and not least from hon. Members of this House, to release a prisoner. The decision which a Home Secretary has to make under the law as it stands is a terrible enough decision, as everyone a preciates. Will it be any less so if the Bill is passed? The decision that the Home Secretary has to make today is whether the law should take its course or not. If the Bill becomes law he will have to decide whether to release a prisoner or not. The prisoner might have been in prison, in close confinement, for 20 years. As a dangerous criminal, he would have to be. The Home Secretary would have been under constant pressure, after a certain lapse of time, to release him after a long confinement. I have had experience of this very thing.
In certain circumstances, the Home Secretary's decision could do more harm to the public interest than it can today. Further, let me remind hon. Members of the pressure that is brought to bear upon a Home Secretary to remove one of these murderers to whom I have been referring, and who is serving a life sentence, to some other prison because of the fear of those who live near the prison where he happens to be confined that he might escape. People are terrified of the consequences. Again, this is not conjecture. It has actually happened since the Bill was introduced. The problem is not solved simply by abolishing capital punishment.
Abolition, if it comes about, will produce its own problems which, both morally and administratively, may be scarcely less difficult and which, in one way or another, closely concern hon. Members individually and collectively. The House will do the country no good if it shuts its eyes to these problems.
A number of attempts have been made during the passage of the Bill to insert exceptions to the general principle of abolition. They have been directed in the main to reducing the dangers which those of us who oppose abolition see in it, by giving society at large some protection against the armed criminal and by protecting the two classes of public servant, the police and the prison officers, who if capital punishment is abolished, will be particularly exposed to risk.
I am sorry that the House did not see fit to accept those Amendments which were designed to discourage criminals from carrying arms and to protect the police. If the Amendments had been accepted, they would have gone some way to reducing the dangers to which the public at large and the police will be exposed, and towards relieving the legitimate anxiety which is felt in many quarters in this country at the prospect of the abolition of capital punishment. The House has a responsibility for the peace and order of the country, and it should not fail to discharge it.
Certain events which have occurred recently have made me wonder whether the warnings which were given in earlier discussions on this subject are not proving justified even earlier than I had expected. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That noise is really no answer to the question I am posing. What I am referring to is the fact that this has happened, and I was simply saying that I wondered if it has not happened earlier than I predicted.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not suppose it has escaped the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I am sure that he will remind the House of it, that if every single exception and Amendment proposed in Committee had been accepted by the Committee and was now in the Bill, the incidents and crimes to which he has just referred would still not have been covered.

Major Lloyd-George: The Amendments to which I was referring were those in regard to armed criminals, and they were designed to protect the police against persons carrying arms, which is what I am referring to. I do not think it makes any difference. The hon. Gentleman can look it up, and he will find it there.
I have been interested to see Questions on the Order Paper, particularly recently, from hon. Members of this House who are supporters of this Bill, who, apparently, are becoming rather anxious about gangs. I have even been asked by one hon. Member opposite to increase the penalties for crimes committed by gangs. Here we are today engaged in reducing one penalty for the most serious offence which a member of a gang can commit.
I regret very much that another Amendment, which I thought would have been all right, was rejected. It related to the protection of public servants, like the prison officers, whom I think we have a special duty to look after, particularly if this Bill goes through. They are entitled to our consideration because they have a difficult, thankless and, very often, extremely dangerous job. The records show that all persons under sentence who have murdered prison or Borstal officers in this country—there have been five of them in recent years, or in this century—have been serving sentences other than life imprisonment. Persons in this category, and they include inmates of Borstal and the overwhelming majority of prisoners, will, if this Bill is passed, be able to make murderous attacks on prison officers without running the risk of hanging.
This is a very different type, and I must point out to the hon. Gentleman who is the promoter of the Bill that he was saying what a ridiculous Amendment—I think he called it "monstrous nonsense"—my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) was moving, and went on to say "Here you are, trying to make provision for a crime that has never been committed." That may be so, but the point is that the type of life prisoner, that is, the reprieved murderer, is a totally different type from the life prisoner who will come in as a result of the passing of this Bill.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has missed the point, and again I am quite sure that it is my own lack of lucidity that has misled him. What made the thing ridiculous in my opinion was that this type of murder has not only not been committed in any retentionist country, but not either in any abolitionist country, which destroys the right hon. and gallant Gentelman's point completely.

Major Lloyd-George: It does not destroy it at all.

Mr. Howard Johnson: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend include the late Mrs. Ruth Ellis amongst that dangerous class of criminal?

Major Lloyd-George: That again, is entirely beside the point. I was saying that the hon. Gentleman's point was that it was a stupid Amendment because it was going to punish people for something that should never have occurred.

Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order. On the Third Reading of a Bill, is it not out of order to discuss Amendments?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is discussing the Bill.

Major Lloyd-George: I was using it only as an illustration. If the Bill becomes law, the type of person to which the hon. Member is referring will be a totally different one, and will include men of a very violent and dangerous character.
Up to date, we have enjoyed the lowest homicide rate in the world—and we should not forget that. We are fortunate in that so far our professional criminals are rarely armed. In this country murder is regarded with special abhorrence. We are now asked to take a step which may well result in more murders being committed; which will remove the most powerful deterrent against criminals carrying arms, and may weaken the barrier which sets murder apart as the crime of crimes.
I would ask all hon. Members to weigh very carefully the advantages which we may lose and the risks we may run in that case. As I have done before, I would ask all hon. Members, when they vote, to remember that they are responsible for the safety, order and well-being of this country. This issue has never been placed before the electorate. I still believe that most of the people are opposed to the Bill, and I recommend the House to vote against its Third Reading.

8.52 p.m.

Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray: I agree with nearly every word that the Home Secretary has uttered, except, perhaps, his

reference to the fact that this country has the lowest homicide rate in the world. I thought I might possibly correct him about that because Scotland has a lower rate than England, and the Scottish rate is lower than the United Kingdom rate.

Major Lloyd-George: I was speaking for Scotland, too. It was very wrong of me not to make that clear.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is leaving the Chamber.

Mr. K. Robinson: He has been here all day.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: I see that the hon. Member has returned. I was not going to make any complaint at his leaving; I was going to pursue a custom which is followed quite often in this House when it is considering the Third Reading even of a very controversial Bill, namely, of paying tribute to the hon. Member in charge of it, and who looks as if he will be successful in obtaining a Third Reading, even though one has differed fundamentally from every point which he has put. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne for his personal achievement.
Having said that, I hasten to add that no argument of his has caused me in any way to alter my own point of view, which is that in changing the present law we are making a considerable mistake in England and a much greater mistake in Scotland—because at present Scottish law is working for a minimum of bloodshed and giving the country the maximum protection by deterring those who might otherwise commit murder.
If I should become controversial I would point out that the fundamental difference, throughout the whole debate, seems to arise from the fact that those who support the Bill look at the problem purely from the point of view of the murderer. To my mind, the position of the murderer is much less important than the feelings of those many thousands of people who are acutely anxious lest murder should cross their path. My hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. H. Nicolson) said that 50 people were run over for every one who came in touch with murder. That may be, but every evil has 50 shadows. Forty-nine may be


illusory but, even so, the shadow of terror exists among a lot of old folk—and not only old folk.
It exists among old ladies living alone, and parents who are afraid for the safety of their children when a razor slasher is about, and wives who are anxious about the safety of their husbands who may be night watchmen, prison warders, or even policemen. I think it is the duty of hon. Members to give these people the feeling that we are leaving no stone unturned to preserve them and their near and dear ones from the danger of being murdered or coming across murder.
I believe that the death penalty is a deterrent and I am quite certain that the great majority of my constituents believe it to be a deterrent against murder. Therefore, they will wish me to do my best to see that that deterrent is preserved. I said that the case is strong for England. It is surely incomparably stronger for Scotland. The Lord Advocate is in the Chamber. How it came that he persuaded the Secretary of State for Scotland not to support the Amendment excluding Scotland from the operation of this Bill I shall never understand.
The Secretary of State was entirely in sympathy with his right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies. He said:
I agree with my hon. Friends … when they reasonably contend that the Amendment should have the Government's sympathy.
That is, the Amendment to exclude Scotland—
I must confess that it has my personal sympathy. The Government have already indicated their disagreement with the underlying principles of the Bill and to that extent I agree that the exclusion of Scotland from the scope of the Bill and the preservation of the existing law in Scotland could be represented, as in accord with the Government's general view; that is a perfectly logical view to take. For those reasons the Government view the Amendment with sympathy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 2175–6.]
Why, then, did my right hon. Friend see fit to take the view that he could not support the Amendment to exclude Scotland from the Bill? He took it because he was advised that it would make the position anomalous if the same crime in Scotland and in England were to be treated with a different penalty—

Mr. C. Howell: Hear, hear.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: The hon. Member says, "Hear, hear". Surely he is not ignorant of the state of affairs today regarding murder, where the position is that in Scotland a murderer has a far greater chance of avoiding the death penalty than in England. Surely the hon. Member, and the Lord Advocate, must be well aware that under the law of diminished responsibility—

Mr. Howell: I do know. Like the Home Secretary, I have listened to most of the speeches during the discussions on the Bill. We were advised that in Scotland a murderer could be reprieved, if he committed a crime under the stress of emotion, and most crimes of this type are so committed. I am well aware of that.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: That confirms the point I am making, that already the crime of murder is treated differently in Scotland compared with England. Therefore, the search of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to create uniformity so that the same crime would receive similar punishment was a search based on no real fact.
What about attempted murder? I do not know whether the supporters of the Bill realise that, if it is passed, it will, in theory, be providing an incentive to murder in Scotland. Under the Criminal Law (Scotland) Act of 1829 an attempted murderer in Scotland was, and still is, liable to the death penalty provided that his attempt, had it been successful, would have caused the victim to die. If we bring that to its logical conclusion, what does it mean? If a man is robbing with violence when armed, and if he attacks and injures his victim and then ties him up before completing the robbery and the victim lives, then undoubtedly the man could be prosecuted for attempted murder and undoubtedly he could be made liable for hanging.
However, under the Bill it will be quite clear that if, instead of stopping at attempted murder he goes further and finishes off his victim, then the man will be excused the penalty of death. Therefore the Bill, which is ill-suited to the state of affairs in Scotland, actually provides an incentive to murder. That is why I feel so disturbed at the prospect of the Bill receiving a Third Reading and why I am so unhappy that we were


not successful in excluding Scotland from its operation.
We went a period of no fewer than 17 years in Scotland, from 1928 to 1945, without requiring to execute anybody. The average that it has been necessary to execute has not exceeded one person per year for the last 10 years. It has been absolutely true to say that nobody has been executed who has not been guilty of deliberate intentional murder. If we do our duty and preserve our fellow men from who deliberately and intentionally murder, it seems to me that we are doing right, whereas if we allow those who murder to have the certainty that they cannot possibly be called upon to suffer the ultimate penalty of death, then we are doing a very wicked thing by supporting the Third Reading of this Measure.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Younger: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) on having conducted this rather difficult Measure through the House to its present stage. It is not very often that a Private Member's Bill occupies so long a time on the Floor of the House or that there are so many Divisions and tests of the House's opinion on a free vote.
Coming at the end of a very long controversy—not only the controversy which has gone on for fifty years or more but the more immediate controversy beginning with a vote in the House last year, followed by the preliminary debate this year and the full procedure of a Bill—I think we can be in no doubt that the House has freely and very doggedly expressed its genuine and carefully thought-out views on this topic. Despite what the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) has quite wrongly suggested, it has, fortunately, not become a party matter. I am certain that no undue pressure has been brought by the Whips or anyone else on either side.
Nevertheless, I think it legitimate to make this one comment which has a certain party atmosphere to it. It might be said that this is only one Parliament and that Parliaments come and go, but when we think how the voting has been divided among the parties, when we think that an increased Conservative majority as between the last Parliament and this has had the result of an increased vote for

abolition, and when we think how unlikely it is that a turn of the wheel and a majority for the Labour Party would result in a decreased vote for abolition, we are bound to come to the conclusion not only that this House has registered a very well-considered view, but that it is very unlikely that a future House will change the verdict.
I therefore invite the Government, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, if this Bill is given a Third Reading, as I hope will be the case, to consider revising their attitude to the further stages before the Bill reaches the Statute Book. Indeed, if they do not revise their attitude it is difficult to see how they can consider that they are fully honouring the half-promise—I will not call it a pledge—which was given. I gather that the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Waterhouse) does not agree. I am sorry if he seeks to make light of this Government statement. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne read out what was said on behalf of the Government, and I have very fairly not described it as either a whole promise or a pledge. This is what was said:
… when we have a free vote, we naturally expect to base our actions, if perhaps after necessary further deliberation, on the decision of the House. The decision for hon. Members is therefore very serious."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 2635.]
I think I am not exaggerating in suggesting that that was a half-promise to the House that whichever way the House voted, the Government hoped to base their subsequent actions upon that.
The arguments on the merits have been so often repeated that I will not go over them again. What it was necessary to say on that score could scarcely have been better said than it was said by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson). We have recently listened to the Home Secretary, and I am sure he would not regard it as a discourtesy, nor would he seek to deny it, if I said that he produced nothing new. He said that he would repeat largely what he had said already. What he said were perfectly legitimate arguments from his point of view, and all I can say in answer is that he gave those arguments at the beginning, we have had them all in our minds throughout, we have weighed them, and they have been again and again rejected.
I was a little sorry that when speaking of the alternative to the death penalty he said that the abolitionists had not faced this matter squarely. It is, of course, perfectly true that it is no part of the duty of the promotors or supporters of the Bill to provide in detail a scheme of a prison regime or a new practice on the part of the Home Secretary to replace the death penalty. All that was necessary—and this is what has been done—was to give the one simple alternative of life imprisonment. Nevertheless, it is unfair to say that this matter has not been properly faced and considered. A great deal was said on the original Motion and on Second Reading, and the very long chapter on the subject of the alternative which appeared in the Royal Commission's Report has taken this question a great deal further than it was when we discussed the matter a year or two ago. I beg leave to suggest that it is probable that those in favour of abolition of the death penalty have read in greater numbers that chapter, and indeed the whole of the Royal Commission Report, than is the case with those supporting retention.
This brings me to something which did strike me in the speech made by the Home Secretary—his reluctance to take into account any experience elsewhere. Of course, if one limits oneself to this country, it is impossible to prove in any absolute way that if something is done here which has not been done here before such and such will happen; but it may be a valid argument, which can accumulate into a very powerful argument, to see what has happened elsewhere. It was striking that, in discussing the alternative and all the other matters he quoted, the Home Secretary was unwilling to take into account the experience of other places where there is abolition.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman was perfectly entitled to take the line he did, and to say that he would advise the House against giving this Bill its Third Reading. We all knew that that was logically what he must say tonight. Nevertheless, I do hope for a favourable response to the appeal made by my hon. Friend, that the Government may feel it possible to be a little more helpful in the later stages. We have, of course, respected the Government's right to

oppose at every stage the promotion of this Bill, and we ask them now, on the assumption that the vote will be in favour of the Third Reading, at this stage to respect our carefully given and repeatedly given verdict and to help this Bill on to the Statute Book.
My final comment is that if there are any hon. Members still in doubt about their vote, and it seems a little unlikely at this stage, I would ask them whether they do not think that, irrespective of what happens on the vote tonight, the authority of the death penalty is already largely ebbing away? Have we not really reached the stage, so familiar prior to every other great reform of the criminal law, when there is so large a section of the public opinion against the particular practice—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not claiming any particular figure, but there can be no doubt that there is a large section of opinion against it. I am suggesting that it is so large a section that it has really become impossible to implement the practice of the death penalty exactly as in the past.
When a law which has such important consequences and goes so deeply into moral feelings and emotions as does this one, comes to be regarded by many as a relic of a past era, it is very damaging to the reputation of the judicial system if it is allowed to linger on. I very much hope that this Bill will now receive its Third Reading and so put an end to this practice.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. John Eden: The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) has not shown what many of us would consider to be due gratitude to the Government for having helped the Bill through its stages. It seems to me very strange indeed that he should now call upon the Government to put themselves out still further to meet the wishes of certain hon. Members. I must say that I think, and I always have thought, that it was wrong for the Government themselves not to have taken a much more direct and active part in the proceedings on this Bill. Nevertheless, the fact remains that they gave a pledge earlier in the proceedings, when the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) first introduced the Bill. They have kept that pledge, and


I can see no reason now why it should be incumbent upon the right hon. Gentlemen to criticise them for not being over-helpful.
As I understand, throughout the debates we have had on the subject the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and those of his colleagues who have supported him have been concentrating on one particular thing. It is true that we have diverted at intervals, but the main thing about which they have been concerned is the principle of the State being in the position to inflict the death penalty. They have sought, by bringing this Bill before the House, to show that it is wrong in principle for the death penalty, or capital punishment, to be retained in a modern progressive State.
As I understand, they have put forward two main arguments to support their claim; first, that it is morally wrong for the State to have this power and, secondly, that it is a method of punishment which is both barbarous and out of date. It is claimed that all progressive States are now either anxious to adopt or have already adopted the system whereby there is no form of death penalty.
Within the last two days we have had evidence from a young and progressive State which thinks otherwise. Canada has recently taken a decision, on a vote, to retain the death penalty. No one could call Canada a barbarous State; no one could call Canada a State living in the past. Canada is a country known for its youth, for its vigour, for its forward looking, for its progressiveness. Yet Canada has thought fit, after careful consideration, to retain the death penalty.
Far from our making a forward step, far from our making progress by bringing in this Bill, I feel that we are taking a retrograde step. Many times during the course of this debate, we have heard references to the Old Testament, to "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." We have had references to the days when the death penalty was inflicted for all manner of crimes, no matter whether for murder or for petty larceny. It was claimed that we have progressed considerably since those days.
Of course we have progressed since those days. Now, however, we are about to take a step which will set back to a very great extent the progress we have made, for what was wrong in those days

when a man could be hanged for stealing somebody's pocket handkerchief as well as for committing murder was that there was no differentiation between types of crime, and no value of any kind was placed on human life. People could have been hanged for committing any small type of crime, not just for taking the life of another human being.
It is because I place—as I am certain all hon. Members must place—such a high value, such a special price, upon human life that I believe we are about to take a backward step, returning to just that same state of affairs where there is no marked or clear-cut differentiation between the criminal who has taken human life and the criminal who commits an ordinary offence. In fact, we shall before long, quite possibly, have a situation where a burglar enters a house and commits an ordinary theft, that offence being followed, perhaps in the same town the next day, by a murder, both of those offences being subject to sentences of terms of imprisonment, the one being merely an extension of the sentence passed for the other.
In my view, it is quite wrong that there should not be some clear-cut differentiation to set apart the crime of murder, the taking of human life, as something which the community as a whole condemns above all other crime. In the old days, as it is said, a man might as well have been hanged for killing a sheep as for a lamb. With the passing of this Bill, the situation will arise where a man may as well be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for killing a sheep as for stealing a lamb.
I consider that this is definitely a backward step that we are taking in reducing the value we should place on human life, and making no great differentiation between the crime of murder and any other ordinary crime.
I wonder how many of the right hon. and hon. Members who, throughout, have supported the passage of this Bill have really seriously considered themselves, or considered anyone else, as being in the position of someone who might conceivably commit a murder. For example, has the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne considered himself as being in the position of breaking into a house for the purposes of stealing


something? He is small and could get in quite easily. There is no doubt that he would now be persuaded to carry with him a weapon or arms of some kind, so that in case he were interrupted in his action he could remove the only witness to his crime.

Mr. S. Silverman: I can assure the hon. Member that I have had impulses to murder in my time, but most of them have occurred within the walls of the House of Commons listening to a debate. By the ancient wisdom of the House of Commons, no doubt foreseeing such impulses, they have been dealt with as all these things ought to be dealt with, namely, by compelling us to leave our weapons outside. That is why there are still red tapes on the hooks where hon. Members hang their hats.

Mr. Eden: I think it is right that we should consider the effect of this Measure on the criminal. So far as I can gather from arguments put forward by those supporting the Bill, we have been considering whether it is right or wrong, morally, to continue to have the power to pass the death penalty in this country, I would ask them now to consider what effect passing this Bill will have on the criminals themselves. Have they taken the trouble, for example, to consult those most deeply concerned with criminals in this country? Have they sought any direct advice from police forces? It appears that they have not consulted the prison warders, whose duty it is to handle and to be closely connected with criminals and to understand the criminal mind.
We are not dealing with ordinary human beings. I am not concerned here with those who suddenly find themselves, in exceptional circumstances, committing such a crime. I am concerned with habitual criminals. It is the habitual criminal who goes about behaving in a brutal manner, the type of man who normally spends his life and earns his living by committing small crimes about whom I am concerned. That is the man whose whole upbringing and environment have been surrounded by a life of crime. Now, through the passing of this Bill, he will find it within his power to carry some form of weapon or armament, not to protect himself so much as to facilitate his

escape should he ever be apprehended in the course of committing a crime.
Before we agree to the Third Reading, we should consider very seriously the position of policemen. Recently, we have seen the results of gang warfare. Hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, were only too anxious to ask the Home Secretary why the police cannot act to stop certain crimes. This is just an addition to the problems of the police. Their problems will be made very much worse by the passing of this Bill.
Policemen may henceforward constantly have to be prepared to tackle armed criminals. Hitherto, there has been in the underworld itself a very nice difference between the armed and unarmed criminal. The unarmed criminal would think very carefully indeed before he moved, so to speak, over the line and put himself into the category of the armed criminal. Now we remove a major deterrent to his doing so.
Hon. Members have said no one can prove that the death penalty is a deterrent, but I do not need any proof. It is not proof I wish to have. It is simply a matter of common sense and a little imagination. [HON. MEMBERS: "Emotion."] Hon. Members are so anxious to consider what they themselves are thinking and what goes on in their own minds that they have not given sufficient thought to what is likely to go on in the minds of criminals. Common sense and a little imagination will show that the passing of this Bill will definitely encourage the armed criminal, will definitely encourage any criminal to take steps to remove a witness, perhaps the only possible witness, of his crime, if he is seen in the course of committing It A valuable deterrent we have enjoyed as a safeguard and protection in this country hitherto is being removed.
I have here evidence of that which I got in this morning's post. It may be of interest to the House. I got it early this morning and I have not yet attempted to verify the facts. It is a letter from a constituent of mine, who works in an office in Bournemouth. She tells me that a man came into her office and said he was trying to trace his wife who had gone off with another man. What he wanted to know was whether, if he found his wife and murdered her, he would hang


for it. He said that he was quite prepared to "do 15 or 20 years for her," but in his own language as quoted to me here, he was not prepared to "swing" for her.
Some hon. Members think this is a cause for amusement, but I can assure them that there are millions of people in the country who do not think it is funny. There are millions of people who, whether emotional or not, dislike the fact that this Bill is going through the House, who do not think it is right that we should take this step in abuse of what we know to be the majority opinion in the country. We have not consulted the people's opinion on the matter in an Election. I should like to know whether any hon. Member opposite who votes for the Bill will say so before his constituents, and to know whether he gets a majority among them in support of his view. It is not a laughing matter. It is not a laughing matter for a harmless woman alone in her house. In my constituency there are many old people who live alone, and by this Bill we are increasing their danger. Hon. Members say that it is being emotional to talk like this. If it is emotional, then there are millions of people who are emotional. It is hardly wrong to represent their view, even if it is emotional to do so.
It is quite wrong that this Bill should go through. It is quite wrong to bring about a change of such a great degree in the law simply by means of a Private Member's Bill. I say this to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne in no derogatory sense.

Mr. S. Silverman: The Government are responsible.

Mr. Eden: It is quite wrong that this change should be carried out in this way. This change in the law, if it has to be made, should be made in another way.
I quite see that hon. Members are concerned to follow what they believe to be matters of conscience, what their consciences dictate.
I was very impressed by the speech of my very close hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson). I thought that it was extremely ably expressed, and, having had long discussions with him, I recognise that he has thought deeply about this

matter and that he spoke from his convictions, as he is entitled to do. But this is not solely a matter for individual consciences. It is not solely a matter for the consciences of hon. Members. It is a matter for the conscience of the people of the country, and we should have taken heed of that fact. Public opinion in this respect should have been heeded because this matter directly concerns the security and well-being of the public.
We have had advice from the Home Secretary, who has given his reasons for being against the Bill, and we have had speeches from those who have spoken from their consciences. I ask hon. Members who think of the consciences of the people of the country, and who recognise that they owe a duty to law and order in this land and have a responsibility in that direction to vote against the Third Reading.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. J. Paton: It is very tempting to me to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden) in his arguments, but I forbear for two reasons. First, because every argument that he has brought forward has been thrashed threadbare in the House over the last month or two and it would be tedious repetition on my part to go over them again. The second reason is that I do not believe that at this stage of the debate any argument put forward by anybody is in the least likely to change the opinion of any hon. Member.
I propose, therefore, not to pursue the general argument on the merits of the Bill but to address a few brief general observations to the House. First, like other hon. Members, I wish to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) upon having arrived at this Third Reading stage of his Bill. He has pursued this matter, as everybody must agree, with great pertinacity, a high degree of skill and sound judgment. I think that everybody in the House, on both sides of this issue, will agree that he deserves the heartiest congratulations of the House on his very great Parliamentary achievement in bringing a Private Member's Bill on such an important issue to its Third Reading.
Tonight, we have moved forward a very considerable stage in a debate that has been going on continuously, not for


a few months or a few years, but for over 150 years. This issue of capital punishment for civil crimes in Great Britain has been a continual issue in British politics since before the beginning of the last century, and at least since the time when Sir Samuel Romilly was bringing his annual Bill to circumscribe the operation of the death penalty as it was then on the Statute Book. It has been the subject of repeated Royal Commissions and Select Committees over the years.
Of course, that continuous debate and discussion of this question is of the highest significance. It is a revelation of the depth of feeling which has always existed in this country over the generations about the nature of this dreadful penalty. There has always been a large section of our public opinion, not a majority but an important influential section of the citizens of this country, whose conscience was outraged by the continuance of this penalty. That is extremely significant, and it is a matter which was contested a short while ago by an hon. Gentleman opposite. There is no doubt, however, that this continual public objection on the part of an important number of our citizens is one of the great condemnations of the continuance of the penalty.
In recent times we have had reformers who have devoted their time to the formation of public opinion upon this matter. At this stage of the Bill, it is right that I should mention the name of one man who, above all others, was responsible for the formulation of the modern case for the abolition of the death penalty. We owe that modern case, which has had such a great effect upon the formation of public opinion in this country over the last 30 years to the late Roy Calvert, whose untimely death at an early age robbed this country of a man who was in the great line of our social reformers. If I may be permitted a personal reference, it was my great privilege on his death to take up his work and, for 12 years until I became a Member of this House, to lead the campaign in this country for the abolition of capital punishment, which has now been brought to the significant stage of the Third Reading of this Bill.
I hope that we are now in the final stages of that long discussion. I hope that

whatever happens in another place it will not destroy the Bill. I hope that the Bill will come back to us and that it will be put upon the Statute Book to end this dreadful penalty. I am sure that if we do it the example will be one which will have great effect throughout the world upon those nations which still continue the death penalty.
I am sure that although today Britain has lost some part of her physical pre-dominance in the world she is still great in world opinion because of her moral force and the character and traditions of her people. I am sure, therefore, that if we within the next week or two see this Bill placed upon the Statute Book, it will be a great example to other nations throughout the world, and may well bring the few remaining laggard nations into the general concourse which have abolished this penalty. I believe, too, that it will have an important effect upon the progress of our own penal reform in a general direction.
For all those reasons, therefore, I hope that tonight this Bill will be given an emphatic Third Reading because it is important that we should have as big a majority as possible, since that may have some influence in other quarters where the further stages of the Bill have to be proceeded with. So I heartily commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that hon. Members who have supported us so far will again rally round us in the Lobbies and see this Third Reading through.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: We are approaching the end of a long and keenly contested debate, of which perhaps the most interesting feature has been the speeches of the younger hon. Members, more particularly those on this side of the House. It is a striking example of the way in which the same set of facts will produce two separate opinions that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. J. Eden) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) find themselves on opposite sides although they are very near neighbours in the political field.
This shows that, contrary to the views of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. J. Paton), the debate has not merely come to an end; the wider issues are, in fact, only now beginning to appear.


The most simple proof of that is that the Bill, if it receives a Third Reading tonight, goes to another place with a startling uncertainty at its very core—the question of the Armed Forces. We were advised by the best law opinion that we could get that the matter was still so doubtful that it ought to have been cleared up either in Committee or on Report. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) did not venture to table an Amendment to clarify the point.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would wish to be fair. The matter was raised in Committee. I said then that, with all humility, I felt, and was advised, that there was no doubt about the matter at all. I may be wrong, but that is my view. Consequently, there was no duty upon me to table an Amendment. It was, of course, completely open to any hon. Member who felt there was a doubt to table an Amendment and clear up the matter. That was done, and the case was argued with great force and clarity, and the House voted upon the matter.

Mr. Elliot: The result of all that was that we were left with the statement by a Law Officer of the Crown that there was no certainty at all about this vital matter. The hon. Member, obviously with every desire to produce a good and viable Bill, has not broached that fundamental matter, which, inevitably, will be broached during further consideration in another place.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to delay the House by telling him all the advice I got and where I went for it. I assure him that I got the best advice open to me and did not rely only on my own opinion. I am advised that, in spite of what the Attorney-General said, there is no doubt about the matter at all. If that is wrong, then other people may put it right.

Mr. Elliot: I can understand that the hon. Member has, naturally, sought the best possible advice. I have to seek the best advice I can, and, as a layman, I have to be advised by the Law Officers of the Crown advising the House when the Bill is committed to its judgment. I am left with the opinion from a Law Officer that there is no certainty upon this very important matter. However, that is only

one of the features upon which this wide debate is merely beginning.
One sympathises with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch. He said—it is true—that we should be very glad to get rid of this penalty and, indeed, other penalties. But I think that on many occasions the House has been debating not capital punishment but punishment. The revulsion which we all feel against the hangman's rope is only slightly greater than the revulsion that we feel against the warder's key. The indefinite imprisonment of young, healthy men is undoubtedly a grave moral issue for any of us. It is not merely reformative. Nobody could pretend that it is merely reformative. It is obviously a deterrent. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne believes in deterrents, as I shall prove, out of his own mouth, shortly.
To take one fundamental aspect, that of sex. Does anybody suggest that to take a young healthy man and deprive him of sex for 10, 15, or 20 years is going to improve him?

Mr. Silverman: The courts are doing it every day.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Gentleman is being a little flippant in this matter, and at a very important moment. He himself believes in deterrents, if they are applied to people to whom he has an objection. I never heard his voice, nor the voice of any abolitionist, raised when it was a question of hanging the Nazi generals who had been guilty of atrocities in the war. Did he testify then on the moral ground? Did he vote against proposals that were then brought forward? I will take the hon. Member to cases where he had an opportunity of voting. Did he or any of his hon. or right hon. Friends vote against the strong and repeated action by the Labour Government in inflicting the death penalty upon those guilty of murders in West Africa and in the Gold Coast? Did he vote upon that?

Mr. Silverman: Since the right hon. Gentleman challenges me—although I think the point completely irrelevant in any case—I would point out that he was in the House at the time and sat on the Front Bench on this side. He surely remembers that when I sat in the corner


seat below the Gangway on the Government side of the House I repeatedly raised these questions. Indeed, I am glad to remember now that I was successful in saving at any rate three of those lives.

Mr. Elliot: Let me take the hon. Member closer to our own time. In the last few days we have debated the administration of justice in Kenya, where the death penalty, heaven knows, is one of the cardinal features. Did the hon. Gentleman vote against it?

Mr. Silverman: Repeatedly.

Mr. Elliot: I listened to the whole of that debate. The abolitionist arguments, which have been pressed so strongly on the Floor of the House on this Bill, were certainly not pressed with anything like that vigour or strength when we were considering colonial administration.

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but he is wrong again. Certainly I and many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have protested to the utmost against the orgy of massacre and murder committed in the name of law and order.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Gentleman and his Friends may have protested against imprisonment and sentences of imprisonment which were passed, but he neither now nor at any other stage has carried forward constructive protests for the abolition of the death penalty in the Territories for which we are responsible, such as he has made about the abolition of the death penalty here.

Mr. Silverman: I believe that charity begins at home.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member is wildly at sea. He cannot believe that action taken on the Floor of this House will have repercussions far and wide throughout the world. If the suggestion is now made that we are sanctioning not merely the abolition of the death penalty here but its abolition in the Colonial Territories for which this country is responsible, the hon. Member will find that many of those who have gone a long way with him will part company with him in the further stages of this discussion.
It is impossible to confine the argument merely to this country and this Bill. The

hon. Member, and the nine or ten total abolitionists with whom he is associated, would wish to carry this the whole way. I am not now addressing my arguments primarily to him or to the nine or ten hon. Members to whom I have referred, but more closely and explicitly to other hon. Members, particularly on the Government side of the House, who have found themselves supporting the proposal for the total abolition of the death penalty here at home without fully realising where the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and his Friends would have them go on the wider issue.
If that issue had been put before this House, as it undoubtedly will have to be put when the Bill goes for consideration to another place, we might well have found that the decision on the Bill would have been different from what it is. I say without hesitation that these factors have to be taken into consideration when we are asking this House to come to a decision on this matter.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said earlier on that he had been upstairs listening to the Uganda delegation. I have also met the Uganda delegation and have listened to them, and certainly they expressed alarm at the prospect of the abolition of the death penalty here and its repercussions on their system of justice overseas. It is the same in regard to the West Coast. I have had the opportunity, with a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen from all sections of this House—

Mr. K. Robinson: On a point of order. Since the Bill deals solely with the abolition of the death penalty in the United Kingdom and this is the Third Reading, is the right hon. Gentleman in order?

Mr. Speaker: I think the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) is arguing that what we do here may be an example or have some effect there. I do not know how relevant that is, but this Bill deals only with the United Kingdom.

Mr. Elliot: We have asked the Law Officers to tell us whether the Bill deals solely with the United Kingdom or not, and they give dubious advice on that matter. From the advice of the Law Officers, we are told that it is a dubious matter whether the Bill is confined solely to the United Kingdom in its immediate incidence. In any case, in its


wider repercussions, it will certainly have effects going far beyond the United Kingdom.
There are many other hon. Members who wish to speak, and I do not wish to detain the House. But I want to say this. In Scotland, we have had the experience of a long period during which the death sentence was never inflicted at all. The revolting Dutch auction to which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne invited the House to address itself at an earlier stage, when he said with his advocate's skill, "How many people do you wish to hang to validate the principle—ten a year, nine a year, or how many?" does not apply in Scotland at all. We retained the power on the Statute Book, although for 17 years it was never necessary to apply it.
When the crime of murder began to increase, the death sentence was applied, and, although I would hesitate to pronounce upon it, Lord Cooper, who was at the head of our system of justice, attributed the diminution in crime directly to the fact that this weapon was still in the armoury, the provision was still on the Statute Book, so that they were able to inflict the death penalty and thus to bring that wave of crime to a close. I am not asking the House merely to believe me on this point. That was the considered opinion of Lord Cooper, whom we all remember in this House as a singularly fair and open-minded man, and one certainly with no bias in favour of cruelty or capital punishment of any kind.
For this House to say that we shall never again have the death penalty inflicted in this country, to my mind, makes it impossible for us to sanction the death penalty being inflicted in any of the territories over which we have control. If it is morally wrong here, it is morally wrong there. We abolished torture, because we believe that torture is morally wrong, and torture in our overseas territories is put down with the utmost rigour. I have myself been with a delegation to investigate the administration of justice in Kenya, and I have no hesitation in saying that we condemned brutalities because they would not have been tolerated in this country. How then can we successfully claim that it is wrong to hang a white man and right to hang a black man? There are very awkward and difficult questions which will arise on this matter,

and very ugly words which will be applied to those who attempt to maintain that proposal as a moral principle,
The moral principle, therefore, is not, in the opinion of most hon. Members, what we are concerned with here. We are dealing here with the question whether it is desirable or undesirable to retain this weapon in the armoury of the law. I say that the course of events both in the law of this country and in the law of the neighbouring country of Scotland does not justify the contention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposed to us that this weapon ought to be removed immediately and for ever from the grasp of the law in this country.
I believe that it is wrong to do so here; that it is a perilous doctrine to introduce in territory overseas, and that the confusion and obscurity in which it will leave the position of the Armed Forces is highly dangerous. For all those reasons, I hope that, even yet, the House will not give a Third Reading to the Bill.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Like the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) I rise to oppose the Bill, but I hope that I shall be able to confine my remarks to its effect in Britain. I want to pay tribute to the Parliamentary skill and tenacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in piloting the Bill through its various stages. I hope that during my remarks I shall not depart from the high standard of debate that has been characteristic of the whole proceedings upon the Bill.
I have listened to all the debates. I have not tried to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, either on 16th February, when we were discussing the Motion, or during the Second Reading debate. I have endeavoured to keep an open mind upon the matter and to see whether I would become convinced that I was wrong in believing that the death penalty was a deterrent to murder. I have heard no argument sufficient to convince me of that.
I have been in favour of the death penalty all my adult life; indeed, I remember debating the question with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. G. H. R. Rogers) 25 years ago, in the West Willesden I.L.P. We


have always disagreed upon the matter. In fairness, however, I must say that one of the best speeches made on behalf of those who believe in abolition was that of my hon. Friend—and I use the term "Friend" in its wide and not merely Parliamentary sense.
I believe that this is a bad Bill, for a number of reasons. It makes no distinction among different types of murder—and I believe there are such distinctions. Nobody can tell me that a coolly and deliberately-planned poisoning does not warrant a greater punishment than a crime passionel. Yet the Bill makes no distinction at all. Hon. Members have attempted to deal with the question of the murder of warders and police in the execution of their duty, but no provision has been made for excluding that crime. No matter how foul the murder, those who commit it will escape the death penalty. That is wrong. I believe that the death penalty is a unique deterrent. The Home Secretary, in using that phrase, summed up the arguments of all those who believe in the retention of the death penalty.
I give two reasons for my point of view. There must be many cases where a criminal would carry arms and shoot his way out of trouble and kill if he thought that the penalty he would suffer if caught would be precisely the same as if he had not committed murder. I am equally convinced that if there was a witness to a crime committed by a criminal armed with a gun, that criminal would be sorely tempted to shoot the witness in order to remove the evidence. I believe, therefore, that these gangster types would certainly have a tendency to carry arms and commit murder in order to escape the rigours of the law.
The fact remains that in all the countries which have done away with the death penalty, with the exception of Norway, the police carry arms. At any rate, that is my information.

Mr. S. Silverman: No.

Mr. Hobson: I am open to correction, but so far as I have been able to find out, Norway is the only exception.

Mr. Silverman: We went into this matter with great care, and there is no country which changed its law on the arming of police according to whether

it retained or abolished the death penalty.

Mr. Hobson: That may be so, but the fact is that there are countries which have abolished the death penalty and where the police are armed. Obviously, they are armed for their own defence, and I suggest that if a crime were committed and the police knew that the criminal was armed, they would use their arms to defend themselves and would kill the criminal. Will it be argued that that is legal murder?
I firmly believe that there is a connection between the present tendency in Britain, the outbreak of gang warfare, and the decision of this House to accord a Second Reading to this Bill. I am convinced that the type of mind that thinks that imprisonment will be the only penalty for murder will resort to the use of arms more frequently. That is the type of person with which we have to deal, and, willy-nilly, we shall be forced to arm our police.
I believe that the public are over-whelmingly against this Bill and I am sure that they are right. There is not the slightest doubt that fear of the death penalty acts as a deterrent. That is why many of the organised gangs have engaged in their nefarious work without carrying arms. There will now be a temptation for them to carry arms. Having listened carefully to the debates on the subject, and having talked in a friendly manner with many of my hon. Friends who disagree with me, I see no reason to change my opinion. I conclude by saying this: the murderers could do away with hanging tomorrow.

10.2 p.m.

Miss Joan Vickers: I welcome the opportunity to say a few words during this Third Reading debate. I am quite prepared to face my constituents on this subject, and I have one of the smallest majorities of any hon. Member in this House. I think that my constituents are already aware of my views. I have taken a great deal of interest in the subject. I have visited a number of countries in Europe, and practically all of those where the death penalty has been abolished, and I have taken the opportunity to discuss this matter with those in charge of prisons who have murderers under their care.
Recently, I was a member of a delegation to Germany and I persuaded those arranging the programme of the delegation to change it, in order that I might have the opportunity of visiting prisons where there were prisoners who had committed murder. In Germany, they do not have capital punishment. Of all the countries I visited where capital punishment had been abolished only in one case were they considering reinstating it, and that country is waiting for a further period of years before doing so because they are not satisfied that sufficient time had been given to the experiment.
It is interesting to note that, on a free vote of the House, the majority of women Members of Parliament are in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. I hope that, as in the past we had people like Elizabeth Fry, who, against the wishes of many people, was able to carry out reforms in our prison system, so there will be others who will be equally successful regarding the abolition of capital punishment.
I am apprehensive of the attitude of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary who, with other retentionists, has created during this debate great anxiety among members of the general public about the likelihood of their being murdered. I suggest that the chances of being killed by other means than murder represent by far the greater threat to human life today. Figures were given by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) about accidents on the road. The murder rate by accident on the road was 465 last month. That is a far greater threat to human life than murder.
We have been told that the death penalty is a deterrent. We have had the death penalty throughout our history and we have not succeeded in cutting down the number of murders by any substantial extent. Those wishing to retain the penalty say that people may be deterred by the possibility, as the law stands, that they may be hanged. When a person commits a murder he knows perfectly well that there is a chance of getting off. I suggest that prevention is better than cure and that the greatest deterrent is the certainty of detection and the certainty of being convicted. The best way to ensure this in the present situation, with the

gangsters that we hear about, is to increase the strength of the police force, which is undermanned, and also to ensure that it is far better paid.
We are asked, as abolitionists, whether we really believe in life imprisonment. I am preferred to say that I agree with life imprisonment. I have seen people who have been in prison for as long as 28 years. They are made to work in prison. I saw one prisoner who was a cook. Not only did he support himself by his work in the prison, but also—and I think that this will appeal to those who say we never think of the victim—he contributed out of his earnings to the support of the relatives of the person whom he had murdered. That system is followed in several countries.
I should like to reply to the point that it is extremely cruel to keep young men in prison for a great number of years. I thought that one of our objects was to cut down the death rate by murder. If it is so very cruel to keep these people in prison, surely that is a far greater deterrent than hanging them.
Public opinion is changing, especially among the younger generation. Recent debates have been held at Oxford and Cambridge, where the abolitionists have carried the day. I myself had the pleasure of leading in a debate in Durham University, where, I am happy to say, we also won the day. I think that eventually we shall carry the opinion of the country with us. I should like to point out to hon. Members who think that the death penalty is such a great deterrent to murder that they have no hesitation themselves in living in, or going on holiday or on business to the very countries in Europe which have abolished the death penalty. Every country in Europe except France has abolished the penalty. Obviously, that proves my point.
I hope that, eventually, the Bill will become law. Then we may be able to turn our attention to where the danger to the general public really is, the danger of death on the road.

10.10 p.m.

Sir R. Grimston: After these long debates, I think we are arriving at the time when the House wishes to come to a decision. For that reason, I do not propose to detain the House for very long, because I do not want to stand in


the way of the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Maude)) who is to follow me to wind up the debate.
The Bill will have a great many effects—far greater than many hon. Members have so far recognised. I will divide them into two classes—the imponderable effects and what I call the ponderable effects. About the latter, the direct deterrent of capital punishment to the professional criminal classes, I will not say much, except that the police opinion, which is unique, is that the death penalty is the greatest deterrent to the professional criminal. I think that the gang shooting which took place a few days ago in Kilburn is certainly a pointer to the fact that the police are right, for this reason: it is known that the death penalty is, at any rate suspended and is likely to be abolished. For all practical purposes at the moment the death penalty does not exist. For the first time in these gang warfares in London, we have had a shooting and not a razor slashing—and that is a pointer in the wind.
The imponderable effects of the Bill—and I assure the House that I will be very brief on this—are far more serious than the others. For that reason, I want to quote to the House a passage from the Royal Commission Report. Incidentally, I notice that as usual the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is carrying on a conversation while another hon. Member is speaking. The Royal Commission Report reads:
We think it is reasonable to suppose that the deterrent force of capital punishment operates not only by affecting the conscious thoughts of individuals tempted to commit murder, but also by building up in the community, over a long period of time, a deep feeling of peculiar abhorrence for the crime of murder. 'The fact that men are hung for murder is one great reason why murder is considered so dreadful a crime'. This widely diffused effect on the moral consciousness of society is impossible to assess …
The Bill will do one thing for certain: in the future it will be known that murder is no longer by itself regarded as the most abhorrent of crimes, because the unique penalty for murder will have been taken away, and there are many crimes in the Statute Book which carry as great a penalty as will in future be carried by the offence of murder.
Much has been said about public opinion on this issue, and if we were to

believe some people we should imagine that "Pity the poor murderer" is the prevalent public opinion. I do not think it is anything of the sort, but that has been the theme of a great deal of the propaganda and agitation which has gone on for the abolition of the death penalty. I am quite certain that that is not the public view and, indeed, is very contrary to the public view.
My own assessment of public opinion, for what it may be worth, is that the public want some amendment of capital punishment as it is now administered but that the majority feel that this Bill goes very much too far, because when it becomes law Parliament will have said that henceforward murder is not to be regarded as a particularly heinous crime. That is what Parliament is saying. I would regard that as a deplorable announcement at any time, but it is infinitely more so at a time such as this.
My right hon. and gallant Friend a short time ago drew attention to the effect that abolition will have abroad. Terrorism is rampant in Cyprus. He also drew attention to the feeling in some of the Colonies. It is quite idle to say that our passing a Bill to abolish the death penalty in this country has an effect only in this country. It will have a very much wider effect. It will say to the world at large that murder is no longer the worst of crimes and no longer stands in a class by itself.
I believe that to be a thoroughly retrograde step, but it is the only construction which the public can put upon the decision of this House. What will be said by one person to another is, "Murder is no longer as bad a crime as you thought it was." That will the message which will go out from this House when this Bill is passed, and in support of that assertion I remind the House of what I have just quoted from the Report of the Royal Commission.
At an earlier stage a supporter of the Bill said it would be a great day for Parliament when this Bill was passed. In view of the effects that it is likely to have in, as I say, raising the status of murder in the criminal code, it will be not a great day but a very sorry day for Parliament. I oppose the Bill, and I hope that even at this late hour—although I suppose that these things are almost impossible—some in this House may change their minds.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Maude: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston), I have no doubt whatever that after the very long and far-ranging debates which the House and its Committee have had on the Bill the House is ready to come to a decision. Therefore, I shall not seek to detain the House, but I do not believe that any hon. Member who supports this Bill would wish the vote on Third Reading to be taken without an answer having been given to some of the final observations of the opponents of the Bill. We have had many of the arguments on principle—arguments appropriate to a Second Reading debate—and I do not propose to go over them all again, but there are one or two points to which, I think, an answer is desirable.
Before I deal with those points, I should, first, like to say a very brief personal word, if the House will allow me. It is particularly difficult for me to have to take a line diametrically opposed to that of a number of my hon. Friends with whom, on most issues, I have been accustomed to think alike. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury will agree that those with whom I normally think most alike are those from whom I diverge most sharply on this Bill.
That emphasises what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said; that the Bill has cut absolutely sharply across party divisions. It has come down almost between friend and friend in this House. This is sad in many ways, but in others it is impressive, because it calls attention to and underlines the extraordinary importance of the issue, and the very deep feeling which hon. Members on both sides, both supporters and opponents of the Bill, attach to the subject.
This is a vitally important issue. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) said, a moral issue. It is a question not only of what is expedient, but of what is right. He said, quite rightly, that very few of us can be absolutely sure that what we recommend is right; but how much less then can we be sure that what we recommend as expedient will prove to be correct? It is difficult enough to argue the moral issues in this Bill, but when we come to the issue of expediency, whether it is right

to retain the death penalty in the hope of saving the lives of some people who might be murdered, with a total absence of statistical or other proof on either side which can be convincing to anybody, how can anyone be sure that the decision he comes to is right?
I am, as I say, in disagreement with a number of my hon. Friends. Yet I do not think they will find, on reflection, that I am a particularly emotional type in matters of this kind. I am not conscious of having come to my decision upon any emotional grounds at all. Indeed, I would say that my instincts and my upbringing predispose me to believe in capital punishment as an accepted means of preserving the life of the citizen. It was only last year, when I really began to think about this thing very seriously and deeply, that I came to the conclusion that I could no longer intellectually and honestly support the continuance of this punishment. I believe that there are many of my hon. Friends who are in the same position.
I do not hope, at this time of night, that I can, by rational argument, certainly not by any emotional appeal, which I do not propose to attempt, convince any or more than a very few opponents of the Bill that they ought to change their minds. All I want to do is to try, very briefly, to mitigate some of the impressions which may have been left by the speeches made by the opponents of the Bill.
First, there has been an attempt to alarm hon. Members and members of the public by the suggestion that an immediate increase in the number of murders and an outbreak of gang warfare not merely will take place but is already taking place. This argument really cannot be sustained. There was a Parliamentary Question yesterday, to which reference was made, the Answer to which indicated the number of murders which have taken place since the Second Reading of the Bill compared with the number in previous years. The number this year is not only lower than in any year but one since 1952, but it is also appreciably below the average for that period. I do not think that we can go, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury, into the details of a particular murder which is still sub judice with any hope of getting any argument which is of any use to anyone.
Apart from that, the arguments have all through this matter turned really on two things only. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary said that many people, himself included, believe that capital punishment is a unique deterrent to murder. That is one argument. The other is the argument is that the police and prison warders will not be safe if those already undergoing long terms of imprisonment cannot be sentenced to death if they commit a second murder.
We have had this over and over again. I do beg hon. Members to believe that the argument about an armed police cannot, as the Royal Commission showed, be sustained; it really does not prove anything either way at all. In countries which have abolished capital punishment and where the police are armed, they were invariably armed before the abolition of capital punishment. I can only say, having recently come back from the United States, that in passing from an abolitionist to a retentionist State, in no case did I notice a difference in the weight of armament of the police as between one and another; they remained virtually identical.
As to the question of capital punishment being a unique deterrent, how can we tell? I frankly do not believe that any hon. Member who has views on this is really susceptible to argument about it. On both sides we know that we cannot prove the thing statistically. One hon. Member says, "I know that if I were tempted to commit a murder the fear of death would prevent me from doing it." Another hon. Member says that there is no evidence to show that people are deterred. Murders take place at the rate of about 12 a month in this country on an average. Even with the death penalty and the risk of being hanged—only one in 12 is hanged—how is the murderer to know that he will not be hanged? Yet murders take place.
Others say, and have said it at various stages of this Bill, "But even if the death penalty saves one life, one person from being murdered, it is well worth retaining it." That is an argument I find very difficult, as a Christian, to sustain, the idea that it is worth while, good and right to hang 12 people a year in order to save one life.

Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Would my hon. Friend also take into consideration whether it is worth while to save one man or woman from becoming a murderer?

Mr. Maude: The mistake into which my right hon. Friend falls is to believe that it is worth while, that it is ethically justifiable, justifiable on any religious or moral grounds, to put to death 12 people among whom, for all we know, may be one who is innocent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not want to make anything of this. It may well be that no innocent person has ever been hanged, but no hon. Member can lay his hand on his heart and say that for certain.

Mr. Philip Bell: rose—

Mr. Maude: I really must not give way again.
I do not try to say that an innocent man has been hanged, but no hon. Member can say that he has not. While the risk exists to say that one is justified in saving one life, or one soul by destroying 12 lives in a year really does not seem to me to be sane. As to the question of what we should do with the murderer if we do not hang him, I think that a very odd argument. It is to suggest that one should kill a man, that one should forgo the chance of saving a soul and destroy a body because of the inconvenience of keeping him in a prison cell.
I do not think that my right hon. and gallant Friend is even supported by the evidence of his own Department before the Royal Commission. I am not going to read it, but if hon. Members will look at the evidence in paragraph 653 onwards they will find that the Prison Commissioners and the Home Office took the view that conditions had improved so much that there was no reason to suppose that one could not tolerate occasional long and very long sentences if need be.
All these are arguments we have had before and I do not propose to add to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Miss Vickers) said that she believed public opinion is changing and that she has reason to believe that young people are changing their minds. I not only believe that to be true, but I think that it can be demonstrated if, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne did, we look on this House of Commons as a cross-section of the people.
If one looks at the results of debates and Divisions on this subject over the last few years one finds that the change in the majority here has been due—this is patent to anyone who looks around and looks at the Divisions—to the infusion of younger members of the Conservative Party into this House, a large proportion of whom have turned out to be supporters of the abolition of capital punishment.
I should like to say at once that I have not received a single letter from any constituent protesting against my stand on this issue, but I am aware that if I went back to my constituency the older of my supporters would be against me on this and my young Conservatives would be, by a majority, in favour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] I am speaking about my own experience. It is perfectly plain in this House, certainly among the younger people who are coming in, that the mood is changing. Hon. Members will simply have to realise the fact that, if this is what has happened, no matter what party wins the next General Election

capital punishment will be abolished, because the trend is inevitable.

I am in favour, and I think that this is what the people of the country want, of being a little in advance of public opinion, of giving a lead to public opinion, not of slavishly following what we believe, perhaps wrongly, to be the wishes of our constituents. We have argued this and debated this, examined it from every side and have given it the most careful and conscientious thought. This reform is bound to come and I think that the majority of the House has shown quite clearly that it would like it to come now.

Sir Thomas Moore: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes. 133.

Division No. 250.]
AYES
[10.32 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Forman, J. C.
McInnes, J.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Gibson, C. W.
Maddan, Martin


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Greenwood, Anthony
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Hale, Leslie
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mason, Roy


Baird, J.
Hannan, W.
Mathew, R.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maude, Angus


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Hastings, S.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hayman, F. H.
Moyle, A.


Benson, G.
Healey, Denis
Mulley, F. W.


Beswick, F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Blackburn, F.
Holman, P.
Oliver, G. H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Holmes, Horace
Oram, A. E.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Holt, A. F.
Orbach, M.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester S. W.)
Hornby, R. P.
Oswald, T.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Padley, W. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Hubbard, T. F.
Paget, R. T.


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G. A.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.


Chapman, W. D.
Hunter, A. E.
Paton, John


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Peart, T. F.


Clunie, J.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Pitman, I. J.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Popplewell, E.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ramsden, J. E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs, S.)
Randall, H. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Redhead, E. C.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Deer, G.
Kenyon, C.
Royle, C.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Kershaw, J. A.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Delargy, H. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dodds, N. N.
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Donnelly, D. L.
Lawson, G. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lindgren, G. S.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Swingler, S. T.


Evans, Edward (Lowostoft)
MacColl, J. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Fernyhough, E.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)



McGovern, J.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)




Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Wheeldon, W. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Thornton, E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Viant, S. P.
Wigg, George
Zilliacus, K.


Vickers, Miss J. H.
Wilkins, W. A.



Wade, D. W.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Weitzman, D.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Mr. K. Robinson and Mr. Kirk.


NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Alport, C. J. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Neave, Airey


Arbuthnot, John
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Oakshott, H. D.


Barber, Anthony
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)


Barter, John
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Osborne, C.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Page, R. G.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Partridge, E.


Black, C. W.
Hobson, G. R.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hope, Lord John
Profumo, J. D.


Bryan, P.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Raikes, Sir Victor


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Rawlinson, Peter


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hudson, Sir Austen (Lewisham, N.)
Redmayne, M.


Channon, H.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Renton, D. L. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Cole, Norman
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Roper, Sir Harold


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Schofield, Lt.-Col, W.


Crouch, R. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Kimball, M.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cunningham, Knox
Leavey, J. A.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Davidson, Viscountess
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Deedes, W. F.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
McKibbin, A. J.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Fell, A.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Freeth, D. K.
Manningham-Buller, R. Hon. Sir R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Glover, D.
Marples, A. E.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Godber, J. B.
Mawby, R. L.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Gough, C. F. H.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wood, Hon. R.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Woollam, John Victor


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)



Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Sir C. Taylor and Mr. Dance.


Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — TELEVISION RECEPTION (HARWICH-DOVERCOURT AREA)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Oakshott.]

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I am very pleased to have the opportunity of raising the question of television reception in the Harwich-Dovercourt area, and to thank my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General for all the trouble that he has taken in the matter. I know that, as the hon. Member for Colchester, he is very sympathetic about this television problem which has arisen in the Harwich-Dovercourt area.
I welcome also the opportunity of saying how desperate some of these viewers are becoming. What is particularly irritating for many viewers is that in many cases they have had great difficulty in saving up for this little luxury. In other cases, after a heavy day in industry, they are at present denied the great relaxation of television to spur them on for tomorrow's task. Moreover, the pictures that we have been getting look, in many cases, like tweed. Then we twiddle and, more often than not, all we get is twaddle or, to be more precise, nothing.
Nearly two years ago my hon. Friend's predecessor promised me, in this House, better reception for the northeast Essex coastal area when the Crystal Palace transmitter was opened. In certain parts of that area some improvement has taken place, the reception still varies in quality. The B.B.C. said at the time of the change-over that the reception would deteriorate in certain parts, but would be put right when the permanent transmitter took over. What makes the position particularly aggravating for our viewers is that after the opening of the Crystal Palace station there was favourable reception for a period; it ended abruptly and quickly. We are waiting anxiously for the improvement promised for August from the partly completed permanent tower at the Crystal Palace.
If the B.B.C. has been able to achieve success once, what is holding it back technically now? I appreciate that the official reply will be that there were ex-

ceptionally favourable weather conditions, but to a layman like myself the cause of the deterioration sounds like some modification made by the B.B.C. since the start of the Crystal Palace transmissions.
Having spurred the Government on to do as much as they can in that part of the country, I should like to say that I appreciate that it is a fringe area. Besides asking for help from the B.B.C. we realise that we can do a lot to help ourselves, especially in a busy port like Harwich. I take this opportunity of appealing to all users of motor cars in the area and, indeed, throughout the country, to see that suppressors are fixed to their cars, and also to owners of electrical appliances to realise what a bad effect such apparatus can have upon reception. I also appeal to transmitting stations to be as careful as they can in the use of their sets.
A great deal has already been done by the local viewers' association to trace these various types of interference. I can assure the Assistant Postmaster-General that we are doing all we can to help ourselves. However, I am convinced that the only way to overcome this problem is for the signal to be made stronger at the earliest possible moment. I therefore press my hon. Friend to see that that is done, and to see that people in East Anglia are given the same consideration that I know the B.B.C. has given to those in the south of England.

10.47 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I should like to support what the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) has said with a very brief reference to the position in my constituency. Alexandra Palace is situated in it, and that has meant that from the very earliest days of television we have had many viewers in the area, who have had extremely good reception. Since the change-over to Crystal Palace, however, some viewers have had extremely poor reception and others none at all.
I wrote to the B.B.C. about the matter, and in reply it was pointed out, as is quite true, that reception in Wood Green had been exceptionally favourable hitherto because of its proximity to Alexandra Palace. This had meant that most viewers had needed only a very simple type of indoor aerial. But now, with


the change-over to Crystal Palace, those viewers are having to install outdoor aerials or make changes in their sets. They sometimes have to get competent radio engineers or even radio manufacturers to do the job.
I do not want to suggest that changes in television transmission which are of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people should not take place, but it is the fact that we have had to suffer considerable hardship in Wood Green because of this change-over. To many people, especially the elderly ones, television is their one luxury. They install it because it enables them to have entertainment at home, without having to go out in the dark winter evenings, and it keeps them in touch with outside affairs at a reasonable cost. For them to have to pay £8 or so for a new aerial, or to incur other expense in connection with the change-over, is a very considerable hardship.
We are told that when the new transmitter is stepped up, after July, there will be an improvement in the position. We are waiting to see what happens then, and I would ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to watch the position very carefully, and carry out as detailed an observation as possible in the Alexandra Palace area so as to check whether this stepping-up really does have the effect that we hope it will have. I can assure him that if it does not, he will receive petitions from very angry viewers in that area, who feel that they have a contract with the B.B.C., and that the B.B.C. should ensure that they should get good reception, and are not prejudiced by the change-over.

10.50 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) and to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) for drawing our attention to the problems of their constituents in relation to the reception of the television service both of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. They may be assured that the Post Office, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. fully recognise the importance of giving the highest quality service possible, not only for the favoured areas of the country, but also the marginal areas of which Harwich is an

example. If we do not "produce the goods," I have no doubt that my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady will continue to draw our attention to that deficiency as forcibly as they can.
At present, we are in a transitional stage, where the B.B.C. is carrying out a considerable change in the technical production of its service by the movement from Alexandra Palace to Crystal Palace of its main transmitter. That has produced problems which were foreseen when the change was decided on. I will go over the period of the recent history of this transmitter, because, although it will bear out a lot of what has been said by my hon. Friend, it may also help to give an idea of the background to the problem facing the Post Office and the B.B.C.
My predecessor promised my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich that there would be some improvement in reception in the North-East in the early part of 1956. During the middle and latter part of 1955, the Post Office, with the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., were considering the whole question of mast-sharing as it should apply to the two television services. The matter was discussed by our Television Advisory Committee, and at the end of October the Committee recommended that mast-sharing at the Crystal Palace should be adopted
as a means of giving the best reception to viewers of both services.
The result of that decision was that the B.B.C. had to redesign its mast and aerial, with the result that it was unable to keep to the time schedule outlined by my predecessor. In fact a temporary 250 feet mast had to be erected with a temporary aerial pending the completion of the new permanent tower with a permanent aerial. Inevitable, there has been some delay in the improvement we hoped would take place. The temporary mast and aerial were completed in March and opened on the 28th of that month. The immediate effect was a substantial improvement in the service, owing to favourably atmospheric conditions. No doubt the technical reasons for that have been explained to my hon. Friend.
I have been asked by my hon. Friend to explain the significance of it. Frankly, I find television a very baffling scientific phenomenon and I do not feel justified


in any way in trying to give him a scientific explanation. Nevertheless, I can assure my hon. Friend that the fading and deterioration in the service which has subsequently taken place has not been the result of any technical action taken by the B.B.C. It was in some degree foreseen when the initial warnings about possible deterioration in the service were issued before the new station was opened.
The next move will, we hope, be completed in the late summer or early autumn. I am not in a position at present to be precise about this because, as I am sure the House recognises, this form of technical development in many cases involves unexpected difficulties and hazards. It would be unfair to blame the B.B.C. if a delay of three or four weeks were involved. At any rate, the B.B.C. hopes in the late summer to open the aerial on the semi-completed permanent tower, which will give a better service, it is expected, than is possible at present. We believe that it will be possible towards the end of next year to complete the transformation from the temporary arrangements which have existed so far at the Crystal Palace to the permanent installation of aerial and tower which will give to the apparatus then in use a radiated power of 200 kW, compared with the existing figure, which I think is about 60 kW.
The House will realise that very substantial progress in improving the service will take place during the next eighteen months, the first instalment of which should be available to views at Harwich and Wood Green within two or three months from now.
My hon. Friend has also drawn attention to intermittent local interference. We have done our best to trace its origin but, as very often happens in such cases, when our engineers make their visits to the area in which complaint is made of interference, they are unable to find traces of that interference. It is possible that this is due to what is termed freak radio propagation conditions, which I understand are liable to occur in many parts of the country at this time of year and which naturally affect considerably such marginal areas as Harwich. The effect of this may be a temporary blackout of the picture or severe interference from Continental stations, and I must

confess—because it is no good my misleading the House in any way—that this is fairly common in the fringe areas and that so far we have not found a cure.
My hon. Friend has also said that he thinks there may be some interference in local reception in the Harwich area from Trinity House installations and ships or from ships' radio transmitters. We are making tests in conjunction with the Trinity House repair fleet and we hope that that may help to assess the situation.
As this subject was to be discussed tonight, I thought it best to inquire also into the sound radio reception in the Harwich area, and I understand that, apart from some interference after dark on the London Home Service from Dresden, on the whole the sound reception is pretty good. Although that, of course, is no consolation to my hon. Friend's constituents who have invested substantial sums of money in their television apparatus, I hope that he will regard it as a sign of the concern which we feel about the problems of his constituents that we thought we should have an investigation over the whole field.
Perhaps I may say this about interference generally. Over the past year or more, the Government have done their best to encourage users of motor cars and electric motors to introduce suppressors. For instance, in September of last year we brought into effect the Wireless Telegraphy (Control of Interference from Electric Motors) Regulations, 1955. These enable the Post Office to make people suppress their motors in cases where individual appliances are causing interference. In the case of new refrigerators and new motor cars, this must be done at the time of manufacture. The reason for making a special case of refrigerators is, as was explained at the time, that these particular appliances run the whole time and it is, therefore, essential that they should be suppressed.
It is the policy of my right hon. Friend—and I think it is one which will commend itself generally to the House—to encourage people to co-operate in carrying out the suppression of interference on a voluntary basis rather than to make it compulsory by trying to use in all cases compulsory powers, which no doubt could be taken by the Government for that purpose. We are at present engaged in carrying out a campaign under the


title: "You're on the air, Mrs. Smith." This has really proved—and I can say this quite objectively because it started long before I came to the Post Office—a very attractive line to take.
What we are pointing out is that many of the people who use hair driers and various electric motors in connection with their domestic appliances, and those who are using small electric engines may, quite unconsciously, be on the air—broadcasting unpleasant noises on someone else's radio or producing unpleasant signs and symbols on someone else's television screen. We are appealing, and I reinforce my right hon. Friend's appeal, to citizens everywhere to think, as probably they have not done, of their neighbours. One can very easily understand the oversight. Indeed, I am thinking back whether I have made sure that I have practised what I am now preaching in regard to the various electrical appliances which are available in my own house.
We do appeal to people voluntarily, in the interests of good neighbourliness, to co-operate in making sure that they do not cause unnecessary nuisance or interference in the perfectly legitimate and proper enjoyment of their neighbours who are keen viewers of television or keen listeners to sound radio. We think that that is the right way. Indeed, in some respects, it is impossible to carry out compulsory suppression. In many cases it would be inequitable to demand it, in so far as the cost of introducing a suppressor into some machines is quite out of proportion to the cost of the machines themselves.
I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend will give any help they can in their constituencies in forwarding our campaign of "You're on the air, Mrs. Smith." That, indeed can apply equally to Mr. Smith if he is the possessor of, say, an electric mowing machine or an old car which has not a suppressor.
I must be fair to my hon. Friend and say that, however successful our campaign to reduce interference from local sources in his constituency may be, the real answer to his problem, and that of all similar areas, is an increase in the strength of the signal from the originating station. We hope, as I have said, that there will be some improvement in the autumn of this year, and I believe, although I shall have to look into it, that that would also assist the hon. Lady. We believe that when the new transmitter comes into full operation next year the reception in such areas as Harwich will at any rate be more satisfactory than it is at present.
Because of the technical complexities and uncertainties of this science, I cannot go further than that, but the hon. Lady can be assured that it is the policy of the Post Office, and the desire and wish of both the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority, that they should be able to give to those people who are dependent upon television for their entertainment and enjoyment, the best service which is technically possible in this country.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.